March 2003 Archives

March 2003 posts

Previous March 2003
More March 2003

Who are you? Figuring out the characters through S7 front credits. -- shadowkat, 09:48:22 03/02/03 Sun

I was talking with cjl last night and came up with this theory...probably totally wacked, but he suggested I post it, since Btvs is a show you need more than two people to understand - way too many angles. Hence the reason for wonderful posting board community's like this one.

In Lessons' Willow is asking Giles who she is. And Giles gives her the confusing line, that she is still Willow, that we are who we are, no matter how much we may have appeared to have changed.

Cjl said that he doesn't believe any of our characters know who they really are or their true power.
They all believe the portraits that others have painted of them. (Actually I can't remember his exact words so this is a paraphrase.)

So I thought about this a while. And said, yes that's true.
They don't know who they are - they only know what their friends, parents, etc thinks they are. They believe the reflections that others cast back at them.

If you think about it - how often does that happen in our lives? We believe what our parents tell us. They tell us who we are or should be. And they'd never lie, right? Well not intentionally of course. Mom tells us that we should be a poet. So we become a poet? Or Dad has a law firm and well our destiney is to work with Dad in his firm. Or our parents are teachers and it is expected we follow in their footsteps. They mold us into the adults they want us to be.
Like Pygmallion with his statue. Or Professor Henry Higgins with his Eliza or Spengalli with his singer. But, the funny thing is - in every single case the statue, the clay...does not take the mold the artist desires. It breaks it and goes it's own way...realizing it is not a projection of the creators self, it is not what the creator believes it to be.

Then of course we have all those educators who teach us what their view of us is and what our history is and how we fit into society.

If we think about it, over our lives we have had so many projections of what others think we are thrown at us, that it is almost impossible to figure out the true version.
Because that's what you often do - project your own dreams, worries, views about yourself onto someone else - seeing in them the faults, attributes, and blemishes that are in you.
If we aren't careful - we can fall into the trap of defining who we are and others are by these false projections and assumptions.

So I started thinking about the six characters in the show, the ones who are regular characters, contracted through this season with their pictures in the front credits. Who are they? Do they even know at this stage? Do they believe the opinions and projections of others around them?

Then I thought about the credits - those photos that appear before the action really takes place, flipping quickly across the screen to the NErf Herder Buffy theme music.

And I asked a question: What if those screen shots reveal in quick order the characters various identities and roles they've worn in the show, ending with the real core identity?

What if the producers deliberately grabbed clips showing each incarnation of the character as seen from different views, from how outsiders see them, they see themselves based on information that they may have falsely perceived from outsiders/parents/friends, their belief that their actual work defines, ending with how they truly are.

So late last night I did a wacky fan obsessed thing - I pressed the slow-motion button on my VCR and re-watched the credit sequence, noting each clip and remembering where I'd seen it before.

This is what I came up with:

1. Buffy (she's the hardest, her clips seem to be the most vague for some reason)
- First group of clips before the actress' name rolls onto the screen is Buffy being "she who hangs out in grave-yards" killing vampires and clips from S5 doing moves blind-folded. (buffy as killer)
- Then after the name - some more clips of fighting.
- Buffy in a black shirt, looking pensive and in control in the Magic Box. (Buffy as leader)
- Buffy in a white shirt, looking shell shocked and soft and vulnerable in Afterlife (Buffy as girl/woman)
- Buffy with a torch of fire (B vs. D) - then swinging to save the day in Hush ( Buffy as hero?)

The break is the Gnarl demon btw.

2. Xander
- Before his name comes up on the screen, we see the image of him looking into the magic light from Hell's Bells where he sees himself as his father. A monster in his head. The HARRIS fear.
- Construction Worker/Followed by man in Suit sitting in Summers House (name floats on the screen during this)
- Dual Xanders in silly shirt in the Replacement: Sauve and
Geeky together.
- Xander with a torch in B vs. D after he did the I'm no-one's buttmonkey speech - I'm my own man - the turning point for Xander.

(Interesting thing to note here - both Xander and Buffy's credit sequence pretty much ends with them holding a torch)

3. Anya
- She's introduced with her name as shop-keeper at the MAgic Box
- Rollerskating girl at the MAgic Box - when she and Xander get officially engaged in All The Way
-With the curlers and eye pack in Hell's Bells her non-wedding day
- Fighting off the demons in The Gift with Giles and Spike behind her
- Anya dancing and having fun (ends with Anya as a normal fun loving woman)

4. Dawn
- Explaining something to Buffy like a kid sister (just sister - part of Buffy, Buffy's shadow?)
-Fighter with a sword from Grave (slayer)
- Student sitting in class from Lessons (student)
- Entering the art class where she learns she has lost her mother, with the statue standing behind her. (The Body)
This is the one episode talks about normality.

The break is a demon research database. Followed by Willow breathing fire.

5. Spike (his is the easiest in a way)
- Big Bad with the jacket from Bargaining - when he went after the demon motorcycle for Dawn (demon - big bad persona)
- Spike in the subway fighting Nikki the 70's slayer
(ie. The Vampire who Fights Slayers) Fool For Love
- Spike fighting the fire demon to get his soul and getting his hand burned.
- Spike in Randy's suit, when he has no memory and changes to game face. He thinks he has superpowers too in the episode.
- Spike driving away in the DeSoto singing I did it My Way in Lover's Walk
- Spike on the demon Bike, With Dawn behind him.
(The protector, the man)

Break - shows Willow breathing fire

Willow
- Breathing Fire
- Dark willow from Two-to-Go
- Cheery/Geeky Willow from Season 5 or Season 4, short hair
- Grown up kind Willow with long hair
- Willow fearing her magic, but integrated standing strong
in the center of the room

(Note that both Willow and Spike's credit sequences start with demonic images and end with more normal ones)

Final sequences: Gange without memories screaming at vampires and closing the door in Tabula Rasa
Buffy jumping from the tower in the Gift
Gang entering the Initiative as a unit in Primeval
The FE's projection of Buffy in Lessons "It's about Power".

From the credit sequences I think:

1. Buffy is afraid she's just a vampire killer, when in truth she's the hero swinging in to save the day and bearing a torch. In between we see black and white Buffy which is how others see her. First is the impression she has - the lie, the last is the truth?

2. Xander is afraid he's a loser and can never live up to anything better than his parents did. Skin-eating parasite like the Gnarl. When in reality he is stronger than that and the torch shows his inner fire and power. In between we see his roles or professions or what others see. The First is the impression he has of himself. The last the true one?

3. Anya thinks she's just the shop-keeper, just useless, tries on roles others give her...in the end she has the power to let lose and be herself.

4. Dawn thinks she's just Buffy's sister, or needs to be a fighter like Buffy or a student, in the end she's growing artistic woman who had the strength to handle a parent's mortality.

5. Spike thinks he's the big bad, a vampire who kills slayers, evil. In between we see others impressions of him.
In the end he has the desire to protect/give/love and is not just the killer he thinks he is.

6. Willow thinks she's a evil witch who kills with out of control power....in the end she's a woman who has power and knowledge she's never given herself credit for?

Okay, what do you guys think?? Wacked?? Reading far too much into a bunch of credit sequences that the writers and producers probably just thought were cool? Or am I on to something?

Hoping it made some lick of sense.

SK

[> Intriguing. Definitely intriguing. -- HonorH, 10:20:43 03/02/03 Sun

One nitpick: that first shot of Dawn isn't with Buffy--it's her delighted reaction to discovering Willow and Tara are lovers again.

I like your credits-analysis otherwise, though. Kinda like handwriting analysis for characters.

[> [> Definitely intriguing...thanks! -- aliera, 10:41:12 03/02/03 Sun

And wasn't the last one last year robo-Buffy? I'd say they have meaning! Off to mull some...

[> [> [> Thanks for presenting your findings -- cougar, 11:56:08 03/02/03 Sun

Have you tried this kind of analysis on any of the completed seasons to see how indicitve they have been? Have the contents of the credits changed with the tone of each season? OMWF credits were changed revealed their song and dance shadows, also changed in Super Star, any others?

[> [> [> Re: Definitely intriguing...thanks! -- LadyStarlight, 12:52:25 03/02/03 Sun

Actually, the last shot is of the FE as Buffy.

[> [> [> [> Re: to me or sk? -- aliera, 13:46:41 03/02/03 Sun

During the season 6 credits? Sorry if I mis-remembered; thought it was a shot of robo-buffy. I seem to remember a few threads on this last year that I liked linking the shot to the "going through the motions" feeling that Buffy had last year. Might have been at the stakehouse or the kitten board though. :-)

[> [> [> [> [> Re: to me or sk? -- sk, 15:08:45 03/02/03 Sun

Season 7 credits it's Buffy as FE.
Season 6 credits it's robo-Buffy from the Gift.

One is representative of the power within.
One is representative of going through the motions.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: to me or sk? -- LadyStarlight, 15:37:34 03/02/03 Sun

Oops. That was for you. No sorry required, just pointing it out. :)

[> [> Re: Intriguing. Definitely intriguing. -- s'kat, 15:05:26 03/02/03 Sun

Uhm actually it is with Buffy.

Buffy is standing opposite her and her hands are open and she's being delighted with Buffy. It could be from
Willow and Tara - but actually I think it might be
from Get it Done. Double check it again.

[> [> [> Nope. I'm right. -- HonorH, 16:53:28 03/02/03 Sun

I looked again, and I know exactly where the clip comes from. Check "Seeing Red". The clip they show is Dawn, in her pajamas, saying "I'll watch TV! Really loud!" (hence the hand gestures). The blond in front of her is Tara wrapped in a red blanket, not Buffy.

[> [> [> [> Re: Nope. I'm right. -- sk, 18:35:42 03/02/03 Sun

Okay, than my theory is wacked, because I honestly don't know how to interpret that clip. Maybe the writers just picked cool clips from each each season that featured Dawn
and left it at that?

[> [> [> [> [> It's Not Wacked -- Shiraz, 06:22:57 03/03/03 Mon

It just needs a little tweaking.

It seems to me, what your trying to say is that, from this first clip, Dawn identifies herself most closely as Buffy's little sister; i.e. the dependent, junior member of a familial group.

This is not really changed by the fact that she's reacting to Tara as opposed to Buffy. After all it was Tara who essentially acted as a mother figure to both Buffy and Dawn for all of season six.

Hope this helps!

-Shiraz

[> [> [> [> [> Aww, s'kat! -- HonorH, 10:26:11 03/03/03 Mon

Take heart. It's still Dawn in her little sister/daughter role, even if it's not Buffy she's addressing right then and there.

[> [> [> [> [> [> OK trying again...see how this works -- s'kat, 12:11:06 03/03/03 Mon

HEre's a second go:

Little sister with surrogate Mom, Tara who is alive in the scene from ironically enough the episode she dies:SR.
(Dawn's happy moment before Tara dies)
Dawn as Fighter in Grave
Dawn as student in Lessons
Dawn entering the art classroom before her great moment with the cute guy - and she learns from Buffy that her mother has died : The Body

So we have Dawn's credits bracketed by two huge death episodes that take her mother from her - her surrogate and her real mother - though not real in a way.

Interesting.

Buffy's are bracketed by vampire slayer and hero and she seems happiest in both.

Xander's are bracketed by demon vision in Hell's Bells and when he comes out of being Drac's vision of him in B vs.D
(I'm not going to be what others see me as anymore scene - holding flame)

Willow's are bracketed by Dark Willow smiling at doing a spell and non-dark Willow looking horrified at the prospect but prepared.

Anya's are bracketed by her smiling and greeting someone at the magic box/rollerskating All The Way (where she's defined by her roles) and dancing at a party having a great time/letting lose undefined - from Season 4 - I think.

Spike's are bracketed with him getting a demon bicycle for Dawn in Bargaining Part II and Spike on the bike getting Dawn away from the demons to safety in Bargaining PArt II.

So the first image is false leader or how others perceive the character or the lie and the last either from the same
episode or one similar - where they act without thinking or playing a perceived role.

Episodes this year that have really delved into this idea.
1. Beneath You = Spike shows up in each persona, but it's not until he literally strips off his costume in the church that we see the real Spike/William. The nakedness of Marsters performance and the writing emphasizes it. You want to know who he is? Re-watch the church scene.

2. Same Time Same Place - Willow puts on roles, literally hides herself. It's not until the Gnarl demon literally strips of portions of her skin and Willow is forced to reveal herself to her friends and ask for help regrowing it that we begin to see the true Willow.

3. Selfless - Anya tries on numerous roles through flashbacks, it's not until she is forced to figuratively peel off her demonic persona that we see the real Anya.
Want to see Anya - watch last ten minutes of Selfess.

4. Potential - Dawn tries on numerous personas, but it's not until she must hand over the persona she wants to someone else that we begin to see the real Dawn...want to see Dawn? Watch the last 15 minutes of Potential.

5. StoryTeller - Andrew tries on numerous roles through fantasy dreams and keeps distancing himself from the action, it's not until he's thrust in the center of it and literally is forced to look at his actions that the real Andrew comes forward. Want to see the real Andrew? Watch the last ten minutes of Storyteller.

Only ones haven't seen yet are Buffy, Giles and Xander.

Clearly a theme going on here.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oops Spoilers: Potential, BY, STSP, and Storyteller. -- s'kat, 12:13:02 03/03/03 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: OK trying again...see how this works -- leslie, 13:02:27 03/03/03 Mon

First, tangentially, thanks, sk, for identifying where the scene of the light shining on Xander's forehead comes from--I've been puzzling over that all season. Somehow, it looked to me like he had a hardhat on, which sent me looking in the wrong places/scenes.

As for Dawn and her first clip--I think one of the things it emphasizes is that, although Dawn is Buffy's sister, the people she most identifies with are Willow and Tara--they're her ideal couple. That bolsters the Wiccan-friendly aspect of Dawn's character as she has matured, but I am starting to wonder whether, if the character is given enough time (i.e., it would have to be in a spin-off, it can't really develop in the time left this season), if Dawn would turn out to be gay, too. In the very first episode that Dawn appears in, one of her journal entries is about how she wishes Willow and Tara would show her some of the things they do together, and how Joyce gets very quiet and then tells her to go to her room. She's had one romantic entanglement with a vampire, and then a spell-induced infatuation--a spell that even affected Willow--but otherwise, not much with the boys. Willow and Tara really are her primary role models for a loving relationship, also the only one she's seen recover from a break-up. I would think she would at least consider it. In which case, the pairing of Dawn and Andrew would be quite perfect--not romantic or sexual, but perfect.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: OK trying again...see how this works -- s'kat, 14:24:00 03/03/03 Mon

the people she most identifies with are Willow and Tara--they're her ideal couple. That bolsters the Wiccan-friendly aspect of Dawn's character as she has matured, but I am starting to wonder whether, if the character is given enough time (i.e., it would have to be in a spin-off, it can't really develop in the time left this season), if Dawn would turn out to be gay, too.

This makes sense to me. Before Willow returns, Dawn has taken over Willow's role in the group and her scary threat to Spike in BY is very Willowesque, reminded me of Willow to Faith a few years back. When Willow does return, Dawn feels subplanted. Also as is seen in Real Me and other episodes in S5, Dawn identifies a great deal with Tara.

And the two men she develops crushes on and moves past them are men that Willow at one time or another had brief involvements with but was second to Buffy: Xander/Spike.
(Lover's Walk/The Initiative)

Unfortunately or Fortunately depending on your pov, I don't see them doing a Dawn spin-off, I could be as wrong about this hunch as I was on the Fred one, of course, but I'm thinking Andrew/Dawn may not survive S7. There's two ways to go - have them dissappear into the heavens as fictional constructs or have them be the sole survivors.

And as someone told me recently...Andrew is the piper in Life Serial summoning the demon's in fact he may be considered the piper to the gates of dawn...so perhaps the two aesexual characters will in some way by the key to it?
Don't know.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: OK trying again...see how this works -- leslie, 15:24:51 03/03/03 Mon

I don't see Dawn being the lead in a spin-off, but I think she may well be being groomed to take over the Willow function should AH not wish to continue. (Interesting that so many people think certain characters could only carry on if they were the leads.)

[> Some Buffy thoughts -- Scroll, 11:44:16 03/02/03 Sun

- First group of clips before the actress' name rolls onto the screen is Buffy being "she who hangs out in grave-yards" killing vampires and clips from S5 doing moves blind-folded. (buffy as killer)
- Then after the name - some more clips of fighting.
- Buffy in a black shirt, looking pensive and in control in the Magic Box. (Buffy as leader)
- Buffy in a white shirt, looking shell shocked and soft and vulnerable in Afterlife (Buffy as girl/woman)
- Buffy with a torch of fire (B vs. D) - then swinging to save the day in Hush ( Buffy as hero?)

Just wanted to add that Buffy blindfolded is from "Checkpoint" and at this moment in the episode, she's still busy jumping through the Council's hoops. So Buffy as weapon in the hands of the Watchers? Or maybe this is the breaking point where she says, nope, gonna do things my way?

Buffy in a white shirt etc. is actually from "Same Time, Same Place", at the end of the ep when she's looking in on Willow trying to heal herself on the bed. So yeah, I'd say same message is being shown. Buffy as woman, being a friend, not having the hard Slayer mindset.

[> [> Re: Some Buffy thoughts...oohhhh! -- aliera, 12:14:27 03/02/03 Sun

And the dingdingding bell-going-off line from that scene:
"Me, I got so much strength (power?), I'm givin' it away."

[> Re: Who are you? Figuring out the characters through S7 front credits. -- Jeremiah, 14:13:11 03/02/03 Sun

I really like your evaluations of each character. I've actually been doing something similiar to go with the 'everything's connected' line of thought. And that's looking for commonalities between same numbered season episodes.

[> Re: Who are you? Spoiler for Title of Buffy 7.17 and spoilery speculation. -- Rufus, 17:44:36 03/02/03 Sun

I'll make a few comments......you mentioned parents and the title of ep 17 is "Lies my Parents Told Me".

What is the function of Tragedy in Buffy and Angel (funny that the Seal of Danzalthar appears to be a goat with it's tongue stuck out)?

Giles says " we are all who we are -- no matter now much we may appear to have changed." which just may reflect back on Giles.

If you want an answer to much of the questions this year, the analogy that Xander used in Help would could be very useful.

Figuring out how to
control your magic seems a lot like
hammering a nail.
If you hold the hammer at the end,
you have power, but not control. It
could take two strokes to hit in the
nail. Or you could hit your thumb.

So you choke up, then you have
control, but no power. It could take
ten strokes to knock the nail in.
Power, control; it's a trade-off.

In Get it Done, a line that the Shamens said was left out.....

SHADOW MAN ONE
You don't understand. You need our
power. To reject us is to disrupt
the Slayer line.

Didn't we hear something about a disruption in the Slayer line?

In Storyteller a line was changed......

Wood stands and turns to face her, furious, threatening. He takes a step toward her. His eyes are CLOUDED, BLIND (contacts, not CGI) - It's a startling and scary moment, as he growls:

WOOD

You're with the vampire. Screwing
the vampire. The monster that
killed--

What we ended up with was ....

Wood: You're with the vampire. Screwing that vampire. You filthy whore.

That was a line that reminded me of the Angel ep Billy. Like Billy, the Seal brings out the worst in a person. Might want to file that away for future reference...:):):)

[> [> Rufus, do you know when episode 7.17 airs? March 17th? -- s'kat, 18:40:46 03/02/03 Sun

[> [> [> March 25 -- Rufus, 19:50:31 03/02/03 Sun

[> [> [> [> Re: March 25??? Ouch. That is a loong time and .. -- s'kat, 21:30:50 03/02/03 Sun

doesn't correlate with what's going on with Ats at all.
Nasty UPN.

SK

[> [> [> [> [> Order of eps up to March 25th. -- Rufus, 22:15:13 03/02/03 Sun

I think we will see the rest of the season for Angel without further interruption. Buffy....

March 4/03 Selfless

March 11/03 Him (you may want to pay attention to that ep)

March 18/03 Conversations with Dead People

March 25/03 Lies My Parents Told Me

The rest of the season up to the finale is still to be announced. But expect a break again after ep 17. I figure they may run the final 5 eps starting April 22 to May 20/03.

I know that the series finale is May 20/03.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Order of eps up to March 25th. -- s'kat, 08:17:58 03/03/03 Mon

Thanks Rufus!!! This keeps me from getting accidentally
spoiled by checking spoiler sources for the dates.

Would agree with you on HIM -- thinking it may possibly have been one of the most important episodes that appeared this fall.

[> another note on the opening credits... -- Anneth, 23:36:11 03/02/03 Sun

DISCLAIMER *the following is all predicated upon the assumption that I'm remembering correctly.*

For the Buffy and Spike clips, neither are shown smiling at all. (For the S6 clips, for instance, Buffy is shown smiling wanly from one of the S5 Joyce-has-a-tumor arc eps.) Xander's clips only show him smiling at his double. Anya's clips show her smiling while dancing and while under the impression that she's about to get married. Only Willow's and Dawn's clips have genuine smiles of happiness. I note this because it struck me as different from past seasons. I remember watching one of the new eps a few weeks ago and thinking to myself about how dour they mostly all seem, during the opening credits.

[> [> Re: another note on the opening credits... -- s'kat, 08:24:59 03/03/03 Mon

With the exception of the subway scene - he's smiling cruely and the singing in car scene - sort of smiling as he's singing...you're right on Spike (he smiles like Buffy does in her clips)

Xander is laughing at himself in the Replacement clip, half smiles appear in the construction worker and suite clips.

buffy well not a lot of cheeriness there.

Dawn, Anya and Willow seem to have the cheeriest clips.

Wonder why? Maybe couldn't find better ones of the others?

SK

almost completely OT observation -- leslie, 14:28:02 03/02/03 Sun

I am in the midst of writing an encyclopedia article on blood in world mythology. I am astonished at how many Buffy sites come up when you google "blood mythology." I mean, I expected a certain number of vampire sites, but I'm starting to get confused over what I'm actually researching here! More Buffy than just generic "vampire" in fact, and I think it must have to do with the "blood" PLUS "mythology" search terms. And really relatively little on human sacrifice, which I had kind of feared would dominate.

[> Ayh! Buffy rules! (ps try googling blood and folklore) -- WickedBuffy, 15:31:07 03/02/03 Sun

[> Leslie, will your article have anything on the Ben Po religion? -- Vickie, 17:47:20 03/02/03 Sun

I'd love to know if you found anything on them, and how you will cover them if so.

[> [> Re: Leslie, will your article have anything on the Ben Po religion? -- leslie, 21:29:38 03/02/03 Sun

I've never heard of Ben Po, to tell the truth. It was only a 1750-word article, so I had to stick to generalizations with short examples rather than going in-depth with a spectrum of religions. Though my sidebars were on the Holy Grail, human sacrifice, and vampires! (Not all at once.)

[> [> [> Book on Lord of the Rings by a Board Bard? -- cougar, 21:46:27 03/02/03 Sun

I finally saw the Fellowship of the Rings today. When it came out I was caring for someone ill and just never went. I remember someone on this board published a book on said tale, but I don't remember the particulars. Was it you Leslie? I'd like to find a copy now.

[> [> [> [> found it in thread below, this board delivers! -- cougar, 22:15:19 03/02/03 Sun

Another dream with BtVS characters in it -- Sophie, 15:22:19 03/02/03 Sun

Well, Willow was in my dream last night. She was captured in a magical cage that prevented her doing any magic. The cage was invisible until Willow walked into it, then it became visible and Willow couldn't escape. A man stood in front of the cage mockingly laughing at her. Then he left. Later he returned with a dog (german shepard - same dog as in previous dream about Buffy and Angel). The dog could enter/exit the bars and followed orders given to it by the man. The orders being for it to torture Willow.

This is the second dream of mine to contain BTVS characters. Like the earlier dream, at first I was a observer who couldn't do anything, but then I became Willow and felt her pain. Thankfully, my alarm clock went off, but I woke up with an aching back and a sore ankle.

I don't remember clearly what Willow was wearing, something brown and washed out - Honorie would have been appalled. The man was dressed like a rancher from the wild west.

Sophie

[> Weirdness! Sounds like Restless, with a dog. -- Scroll, 20:48:30 03/02/03 Sun

[> Doggie wierdness -- cougar, 21:16:44 03/02/03 Sun

Every thing's connected. There are two German Shepards in my neighbourhood, owned by different people and their names are Buffy and Angel. Angel actually savaged my friend's Sheltie so perhaps he had better be called Angelus. (I also have a budgie named Willow who, unbeleivably, lives in a cage!). How wierd is that? : )

My most frequent Buffy dream themes have been Xander forced into being a soldier again and protecting people but never being aknowledged and Vampires that confront Buffy in an old stone church and ask questions about God. Then there was the one about being forced to keep James Marsters locked in a prison (man can he pout) but I finally found a way to leave a window open for him when I had to lock the door. Haven't had remembered any in a while, I guess nothing in recent episodes has touched a chord.

[> Re: Another dream with BtVS characters in it -- Arethusa, 09:06:03 03/03/03 Mon

Remember in The Wish, Willow walked into a cage holding the "angry puppy": Angel, whom Willow began to torture. Your dream must be attempting to punish Vamp Willow for being naughty!

The Great Vampire Smackdown Musical - A Little Chat Silliness -- LittleBit (oceloty, Brian and fidhle), 22:31:03 03/02/03 Sun

The Great Vampire Smackdown Musical

ATP chat, Feb 28, 2003

I took out the laughs and comments. the typos are mine [oceloty]. And mine [LittleBit]

Scene is Sunnydale after the apocalyptic battle with the First Evil. Buffy, looking bedraggled and tired, goes to Spike and Angel and all three walk off together into the sunset, using a large umbrella. Spike and Angel begin fighting over Buffy. [Intro courtesy of fidhle.]

Brian: Hard to imagine - I just saw Angel and Riley going at it - I can imagine how tough it would be for Angel and Spike to share
LittleBit: be fun though
Brian: absolutely- tall and dark vs blond and wiry
LittleBit: Buffy: "one more display of fanged testosterone poisoning and I stake you both!"
fidhle: could lead to a great UPN spin-off
fidhle: vampire WWF
LittleBit: Angel and Spike, simultaneously: "he started it!"
Brian: fags and fists and flying kicks
LittleBit:The Battle of the Black Leather Coats
oceloty: lol vampire smackdown
Brian: "I don't like him. he has "hair" issues"
LittleBit: Midnight Madness
oceloty: battle o' the big fluffy puppies with bad teeth
oceloty: OK, that doesn't sound as dramatic as the leather coats thing
fidhle: with Willow as the ref?
Brian: no Xander of course
Brian: Anya and Willow on the sidelines yelling encouragement
fidhle: I think vampWillow would be perfect as ref
Brian: now you are talkin
LittleBit: willow as the ref -- she can smack them magically to their corners if they get out of line
LittleBit: last minute surprise guest color commentator -- Drusilla
oceloty: hmm, Buffy's testosterone poisoning line works for me
Brian: in this corner we have tall dark broody Angel - the vampire with a soul and a heart of gold
Brian: and in this corner we have peroxide blond, sarcastic Spike the big bad the vampire with a soul - hey! wait a minute
LittleBit: [from the cheap seats] "yeah? but what's his heart made of?!! huh?!"
LittleBit: [from down front] "white gold, of course, you idiot!"
oceloty: hee, Spike's heart unbeats for its one true love, Manchester United
oceloty: also, but seems to be a ventriloquist, or just changes seats really quickly
LittleBit: it wasn't me! [whistles nonchalantly]
Brian: built low to the ground for speed
oceloty: you, bit, or spike?
LittleBit: we're setting up the Battle of the Black Leather Coats Midnight Madness Smackdown
fidhle: UPN should love it
Brian: all included
c: you know who else would make a great commentator? Lorne!
LittleBit: Lorne and Dru!
Brian: with singing demon chorus girls
Brian: wouldn't Dru give Lorne a headache?
fidhle: the demon chorus girls could hold cards announcing the rounds
oceloty: only if Dru sings. she could have a non-singing clause in her contract
LittleBit: but she'd bring a never before seen perspective to the commentary
Brian: Dru, dark honey sweetie, stop the singing, I hear just way too many voices
LittleBit: "oooh you're a star -- I named you"
Brian: Dru singing - now there's an image - something from a musical? Little Shop of Horrors perhaps
LittleBit: 'who's afraid of the Big Bad'
fidhle: a special rendition of 'Feed Me'
LittleBit: 'Poisoning Pigeons in the Park'
fidhle: perhaps starring a selected member of the audience
Brian: Dru: how about a hand for the green glowy girl in the too tight dress
LittleBit: and of course a little Sweeney Todd
fidhle: all those happy meals with feet just sitting there
LittleBit: 'ooo-our boys are going to fight over me" ... "no, licorice stick, they're fighting over the cute little blondie'
oceloty: at which point it becomes a doublematch!
oceloty: Dru vs. Buffy
Brian: 'quick,. someone bring on the mud"
fidhle: if this goes much further, they won't be able to show it prime time
LittleBit: HBO!! the 'naked' ep!
Brian: the all singing, all dancing, all naked episode
oceloty: they're not wearing anything under their coats! or dresses
fidhle: buffy would get to unwrap her present
oceloty: hmm, would there be ballet?
LittleBit: "wait, is that a ... sock?"
fidhle: Dawnie would like that
Brian: Dawn dancing at the end of each round
oceloty: in a tutu!
Brian: nah, she needs to be naked too - and then the cops raid the joint
LittleBit: oh no!
Brian: I think Giles is in serious trouble
fidhle: yeah, the cops from The Shield!
LittleBit: Angel and Spike look at each other, nod, and proceed to take out the cops
fidhle: but the cops wouldn't know what they were up against, and would quickly lose
fidhle: Buffy would join in, as would Dru ... a new alliance!
LittleBit: what's-his-name puts in a request for the night shift
Brian: Buffy rips off Giles coat to cover dawn, and reveals Giles in his Dr. Frankenfurter outfit, and he starts to sing "I'm Just a Sweet Transvestite from Transylvania"
LittleBit: surprise guest Tara appears and sings "Toucha Toucha Touch Me"
Brian: she and Giles then join up for a duo of "You're the One That I Want" from Grease
LittleBit: Angel, to prove his love to Buffy, decides to sing to her ... "you are my sunshine..."
fidhle: that would be a burning rendition wouldn't it?
Brian: and Spike joins in with a chrous of "I hate myself for loving you"
fidhle: joined by Buffy. lovely duet
LittleBit: Angel, realizing that the song might not be the best choice, switches to 'come on baby light my fire'
oceloty: at which point, Lorne's head explode!
Brian: well the trio appear and break into "it's only rock and roll"
fidhle: well, oce, he shoulda had that foot rub
oceloty: fortunately, fred is around to superglue it back together
Brian: Fred and Gunn do the love song from west side story
LittleBit: Cordelia, not to be outdone, bursts into 'if they could see the now that little gang of mine'
Brian: the ghost of principal flutie appears and comments 'can't you just feeel the love'
fidhle: where does the water buffalo fit in?
LittleBit: halftime fidhle
fidhle: along with babe the piglet
Brian: up in the box seats as he doesn't like to be herded into a crowd
fidhle: give him a chance and he'll herd the audience
LittleBit: the Ghost of Snyder appears and sings "just you wait Buffy Summers, just you wait. you'll be sorry but by then 'twill be too late!"
fidhle: and runs around shouting for order
fidhle: and gets ate by the ghost of the mayor
LittleBit: for no particularly good reason we then hear Harrison Ford's voice over the speaker. "Snakes. Why did it have to be snakes"
Brian: sounds like it's time for a big chorus number
LittleBit: we see gnarly little demon minions off to one side who then sing in chrous "Glor-or-or-or-or Or-or-or-or-or Or-or-or-or-or-if-i-cus" then they realize she is really gone and switch to "ding dong the god is dead"
Brian: poor Glory a hellgod with such a sleazy taste in clothing
fidhle: and then the band starts playing the theme from Gentle Ben, wistfully
LittleBit: then to update the number it segues into "can you see a brand new day?!"
Brian: and all the vamps in the audience scream and run for cover
LittleBit: Spike and Angel turn and stare at them. Spike: "are you buggered stupid"
fidhle: Buffy then sings "somewhere over the hellmouth!"
LittleBit: feeling the need for a big finale number the group puts their heads together and try to come to an agreement
LittleBit: Buffy suggests "One, singular sensation ..."
LittleBit: they just look at her
Brian: how about "if they could see me now"
LittleBit: Xander puts in for Nowhere Man, then realizes not a big finale
Brian: Well, Beatles, Sure - All you need is Love
LittleBit: yeah!
fidhle: Dawn starts, softly, joined in by Buffy, then Anya and Willow.
LittleBit: Lorne joins in along with Giles
fidhle: Giles comes in, with the ghost of Jenny.
Brian: the Master, the Mayor, Adam, Glory, Warren and Jonathan join in
fidhle: Then Spike and Angel join Buffy.
Brian: and Cordelia
LittleBit: next in, Xander and Anya
Brian: Willow and Tara
LittleBit: Drusilla
Brian: and Miss Edith
fidhle: and Fred and Gunn, with Wes trying to get in
LittleBit: and mmmm ... Lindsey
Brian: heck, Wes and Lilah
Brian: Connor and Dawn
LittleBit: the Beast, who has a surprisingly rich baritone
Brian: Lorne and a really big seabreeze
fidhle: With all of the people now on stage, the stage collapses, with all of the lovers hugging each other
LittleBit: well, that certainly brought the house down! ;-)
fidhle: Then, Buffy looks up, quizzically, and asks "When did the house fall down?"
Brian: Lorne and the sudden appearance of Darla, stare at the pile of wonderful folks, launches into make it one for my baby and one for the road
LittleBit: they hear a sudden surprising guitar riff, one with a many chord, and - it's OZ!
fidhle: and Dingoes Ate My Babies, joined by Amiee Mann
Brian: with a reformed Verucha
Brian: "Be it ever so hellish, there's no place like Sunnydale"
LittleBit: and finally at Angel's urging, they all sing "Stairway to Heaven"
LittleBit: Lorne, however, cringing at Angel's singing, grabs Spike's spare sock and stuffs it in Angel's mouth
LittleBit: Andrew, basking in all the love, observes "wow, we could make the Statue of Liberty walk!"

A little chat silliness for you all!

[> 'When did the house fall down?' -- Dead Soul, 23:20:54 03/02/03 Sun

Ohmigod! I can't believe I missed it. Oh, and you all owe me a new keyboard. I snorted diet coke all over mine.

Dead (but still with the carbonated sinuses) Soul

[> ROFLOL!! My God, you people are insane! -- Scroll, 00:00:32 03/03/03 Mon

Thank you, thank you, thank you! Whew, I needed a good belly laugh! That was just hilarious. I can't believe what you guys can come up with in chat, it should be illegal. Or else mass produced and marketed so everybody could enjoy!

LittleBit: the Beast, who has a surprisingly rich baritone

I nearly fell off my chair at this line. Honest! My chair was tipped forward as I was reading, and I almost fell over when I started laughing!

[> [> Scroll, this is what chat is like - people falling off chairs... -- Caroline, 06:58:08 03/03/03 Mon

snorting various beverages on their keyboards etc - but there's also lots of cybercookies and occasional rational conversation. Come and join in our groove thing!

[> [> [> Re: Scroll, this is what chat is like - sometimes people running around naked! -- Sophie, 07:08:55 03/03/03 Mon

That's hilar^H^H^H^H^H funny!

S

[> [> [> [> I can't believe I forgot the nekkidness! *Smap* -- Caroline (warning that we do card for chat), 08:12:21 03/03/03 Mon

[> Thanks guys, sorry I missed it. -- Caroline, 06:55:32 03/03/03 Mon

[> Preserving this thread from Voynok -- Masq, 12:52:33 03/03/03 Mon

[> [> Thanks, Masq -- LittleBit (keeping it alive), 14:36:03 03/03/03 Mon

[> [> Yes, thanks, Masq. -- fidhle, 15:00:21 03/03/03 Mon

Everything You Know is Wrong (spoilers for S7; spec) -- cjl, 22:51:47 03/02/03 Sun

This is the other side of the Saturday night conversation between me and shadowkat; you can read her end in the "Who Are You" post below. (Frankly, I wasn't in the mood for this tonight, but she invoked my name, and like any self-respecting djinn, I had to appear. It's apparently a rule of the universe...)

Briefly summarizing the post below: shadowkat and I have been studying all of the Buffy characters with our usual laser-sharp intensity, and we noticed how they've all allowed themselves to be defined by others, and lost the essence of their personalities behind the roles they play. Shadowkat went through the various identities of each character in the S7 credits: Buffy as huntress and the ever-unpopular "Field Marshall von Buffy"; Xander as construction worker and Big Daddy; Willow as supervillain and dark mystic; Spike as Big Bad; Anya as demon and shopkeeper; and Dawn as--well, shadowkat's theory breaks down a little with Dawn. (But when I cue up "Selfless" this week, I'll pay special attention to the Dawnster's credit sequence and try to come up with something that fits.)

But I think the Scoobies' collective predicament goes beyond just fitting into the roles your parents, lovers or friends have assigned to you. Those roles are something we usually take on gladly; it's the adjustment you make when you let another person into your life. No matter how much you love and care about another human being, there is almost no way to show the other your "true face" in all its complexity. (Almost. I'll get back to this later.) We are, in a real sense, alone from cradle to grave, and all our social relationships involve a certain degree of roleplaying. (I have the burning desire to include the word "existentialism" somewhere in this paragraph, but I can't find a convenient spot...)

Frankly, I think the Scoobies--all of them--have been hoodwinked. Fed a line. Bamboozled. Razzle dazzled. The FE and its agents or stand-ins have put on a spectacular show, and the Scoobs have eaten it all up with a spoon, mainly because the FE's tactics have confirmed the Scoobs' worst opinions of themselves. To triumph, Buffy and the gang are going to have to see beyond the deceptions--some of them as old as recorded time. (Some of the following is in my "Duality, Becoming, and the End" thread in the archives, so I'll try not to repeat myself too much. Refer to that post for more details.) Going down the list:

XANDER. Crippled by a false vision of the future in "Hell's Bells" (our first view of Xander in the S7 credits, BTW). As s'kat said below, Stewart Burns was hardly a reliable source of information, but the vision dovetailed perfectly with Xander's view of himself; he's just like his father, a monster waiting to be born--he just needs the right circumstances. This is why Xander didn't appear in "Conversations with Dead People": the First Evil doesn't need to bother with Xander, because Xander's taken himself out of the game. He already thinks he's evil and lost his heart. We all know better--but Xander doesn't.

DAWN. The First Evil's tactic in CwDP was ingenious: it hit on Dawn's two weak spots--Joyce and Buffy. Dawn is deathly afraid that she's completely insignficant, that Buffy has no need for her, and her entire life with her family was a lie and has had no meaning. If that was the First Evil taking the form of Joyce ("Buffy won't choose you"), it reinforced Dawn's worst fears about herself. Dawn, with the help of Xander's speech in "Potential," is just starting to realize how special she is apart from his sister and her "artificial" past. She hasn't tapped into her true potential as the Key, though, and the FE is perfectly happy letting her think the Key isn't part of her anymore...

ANDREW. Speaking of potential, here's another character who's been strung along and is blissfully unaware of his true nature (blissful for the FE, that is). Why don't the Scoobies ask themselves why the FE keeps trying to push Andrew over to the dark side? Why does it keep trying to stunt Andrew's emotional growth by feeding into his worst fanboy tendencies? What's it afraid of? Why doesn't it want Andrew to grow up?

WILLOW. The revelation that Cassie was the FE in CwDP is almost irrelevant. The FE achieved its purpose by placing doubt in Willow's mind about control over her magic, and then reinforced those doubts in "Bring on the Night." What Willow doesn't seem to realize is that the so-called "parasitic" aspect of her magic isn't evil--it's natural. When Willow and Tara performed magic together, it was a marvel of sensuous, shining beauty because they gave each other their power, and the whole was far greater than the sum of the parts. She performed similar magical feats with Buffy and Anya in STSP (and perhaps, unknowingly, in "Get It Done"). But the specter of Darth Rosenberg hovers over her, and she doesn't trust her own instincts....

GILES. He's a two-fer with Buffy. Get to him in a minute.

ANYA. As I said in great detail about halfway through my Duality/"Becoming" post, D'Hoffryn pulled off a magnificent scam at the end of "Selfless." He never really had control of Anya during her second incarnation as a vengeance demon, and therefore, he couldn't incinerate her when he so desperately wanted to. Instead, he summoned Halfrek and roasted poor "ex-Cecily" to intimidate Anya into silence. This is why Anya didn't appear in CwDP either; she doesn't realize she still has her power, and--like Xander--she's taken herself out of the game. The FE is perfectly happy leaving her alone. (Actually, I'm surprised the First Evil hasn't put a major hurt on D'Hoffryn. By sending assassins after Anya, he's sending up a huge red flag to the Scoobies that SHE'S STILL A THREAT.)

SPIKE. Hoo daddy. Evil has messed with his head big-time. I have a theory about Spike that may explain the somewhat puzzling events from "Seeing Red" through "Grave" and could prefigure Spike's role in 7.21 and "Chosen." (Bear with me here....)

Reading through TCH's reflections on the S2 Angel Odyssey, I recently found myself re-evaluating two of the most peculiar and inexplicable events in the history of the Buffyverse: the snowstorm at the end of "Amends" and the conception of Connor at the end of "Reprise." Both of these events are absolutely impossible according to the laws of the Buffyverse, and both of these miracles ('cause that's what they are) arrived at the hour of Angel's greatest despair. (TCH, that's why the episode is called "Reprise.")

Why did the Powers that Be grant Angel these boons at his lowest moments? Let me tell you something folks, I've struggled with this question for a long time (YEARS!), long before I ever started this post or posted on the internet at all. But I've finally come up with an idea, born out of desperation (and a passing acquaintance with Kierkegaard): perhaps, at these moments of great pain, all our masks have been thrown away, and we are truly "ourselves." Perhaps when we have fully given in to despair, we are the most human.

Now that you've digested that tidbit, think back to "Seeing Red." Spike has a moment of total despair, virtually identical in nature to Angel's moments of despair in "Amends" and "Reprise." The vampire identity he'd built for over a century finally came tumbling down in pieces, and he was, for all intents and purposes, ANNIHILATED. And perhaps, when he felt that moment of impossible guilt, he was reborn. He reconnected with his soul back in "Seeing Red," NOT "Grave."

So what was the whole thing with the Lurker Demon about? Showtime. A Ringling Brothers act, with fire jugglers and trained insects. A Wizard of Oz fakeout, granting Spike a boon he'd already received. It was the First Evil taking credit for Spike's epiphany, and at some point, the FE will call in its marker. Will Spike have the insight to realize the answer has always been within himself, and his destiny is his own?

BUFFY (and GILES). Shadowkat keeps trying to get me to read "His Dark Materials" because she loves the idea that the story of creation is flipped on its head, and God is the bad guy. ('kat, I hope I'm quoting you correctly here.) What if Joss Whedon is doing the same thing here? What if everything we know about the Buffyverse creation myths is wrong?

In "Get It Done," the shadow play spits out three apparently irrefutable facts in consecutive order: first, there was the Earth. Then came the demons. And after that, came the humans. You'll note--there was no MORAL value attached to any of these events. Demons and humans, co-existing on the earth, apparently went about their business interacting with each other, perhaps hunting and killing one another, but without any conceptual baggage that one side was "good" and the other side was "evil." It was before morality, before sin, before the exile from Eden. Then the Shadowmen placed the spirit of a demon inside the First Slayer and the natural order was disrupted; the Shadowmen drew the battle lines, and the eons-old conflict between good and evil had begun.

Buffy, and by extension, all the Slayers and their Watchers are creations of the Shadowmen. Everything Giles and the Council told her over the first six seasons has kept the battle going--but the battle has to end (or be transcended) if the world is going to survive. Fortunately, Buffy is technically outside the Slayer line and has the once-in-an-eternity chance to do on a cosmic scale what she's always done--ignore the authority figures feeding her a line and write her own ending to the series....

Well, I hope that illuminated a few dark corners of Buffy's world. I've got to get to sleep. Comments appreciated, as always.

[> Re: Everything You Know is Wrong (spoilers for S7; spec) -- Darby, 07:40:14 03/03/03 Mon

I don't really have anything to add, but I'd hate to see this get archived before everybody's had a chance to read it.

I'm of a mind with you on this - perhaps the "back to the beginning" includes the original convention of turning convention on its head - and a basic hero convention is that Good and Evil exists, that there are Absolute foundations beneath both sides. I've suspected the Powers That Be since they were introduced, the First Evil has never made sense as a primal entity, and we've been shown in bits and pieces that all Buffyverse information is rife with agenda and propaganda.

From beneath our expectations, ME devours.

[> Re: Everything You Know is Wrong (spoilers for S7; spec) -- Revenant, 07:49:43 03/03/03 Mon

Excellent analysis. I love this show and watch it without fail and agree that this is probably the direction the series is heading. JW is definitely a product of Hollywood, pop culture and moral relativism. I wonder if any other series has carried this theme to its logical conclusion before?

Although I'm not a proponent of this philosophy, I have to admire the way ME has executed it. They've been a bit more obvious on AtS with examples of "good" demons and all of Angel's epiphanies, but I'm expecting/hoping to see it graphically revealed during the final five episode arc of Buffy.

[> [> Re: Everything You Know is Wrong (spoilers for S7; spec) -- MaeveRigan, 13:16:41 03/03/03 Mon

I wonder if any other series has carried this theme to its logical conclusion before?

Babylon-5 carried out and concluded a similar premise with its Vorlons and "Shadows." Both were initially mysterious, but the Vorlons seemed at first to be "good" and even appeared to be every race's idea of angels, or at least the inspiration for such; while the "Shadows" definitely emerged as the enemy, if not downright evil.

But eventually it was revealed that both groups were factions of the "First Ones," ancient races whose views on how to run the universe differed, except in that both were manipulating the "younger races." The climax of season 5 of B-5 was Sheridan's rejection of both Vorlon and "Shadow" guidance, help, or domination in favor of human freedom to fail or succeed on their own.

Sounds a lot like Pullman, in a way. Except it wasn't quite that simple. ;-)

[> [> [> Re: Everything You Know is Wrong (spoilers for S7; spec) -- Slainey, 10:47:42 03/04/03 Tue

This is good.
I've wondered how they are going to complete the "growing up" metaphor that has always surrounded Buffy. In many ways the demons were about not maturing and relying on basic animal instincts.

For a while I've wondered if the show would end with a complete cutting off of demon dimensions and a typical rite of passage such as a wedding, funeral, or graduation. If everything we know is wrong the demonyness will be embraced and Buffy will reject growing up. Is there a way to do this responsibly?

I'm relatively new here and my brain is starting to hurt.
Must go.

[> The Ultimate Misdirect -- lunasea, 08:07:50 03/03/03 Mon

I always figured that the ultimate misdirect about the show was its title. I loved Joss' comments about how some people just don't get it. I haven't been watching a show about a vampire slayer. I have been watching a show about Buffy's heart.

I liked how when Angel got his own show, it was just called Angel. It isn't about Angel Investigations or Angel: the vampire or the champion. It is just about Angel and his struggle to be human and understand what that means.

All that roleplaying is for our own benefit as much as it is for others. We don't understand our own complexity, let alone the simplicity on the other side of that. We assign ourselves roles so that we know how to act. If Buffy is the Slayer, than she knows what she has to do. If she wasn't, she wouldn't. Angel is the same way. He knows how to act because he has a purpose, he is the champion who shows others what the world can be.

Their moments of dispair come when they don't know what to do. If Angel can't beat evil, then what? If Buffy can't save Dawn or beat the First, then what? If Spike can't be evil and can't have Buffy (he wanted Buffy because he couldn't be evil and it gave him something), then what? If Willow can't do magic, then what? Poor Dawn has no if's, just lots of then what's. Xander is in a similar boat. Same thing with Anya. This was highlighted when Buffy asked her what she contributed.

We don't worry about being alone, nearly as much as being inactive. In our activity is our existence. When we define our activity by others, then being alone becomes a problem.

[> [> Labels -- Celebaelin, 01:12:33 03/04/03 Tue

As you point out people often define themselves in terms of their function rather than their personality. If asked "What do you do?" most people are more likely to answer with a job title than a name. Whether or not this is for the benefit of the questioner as a means of establishing a start point for more meaningful dialogue regarding personal identity is uncertain. Could it be for the benefit of the questioned individual in identifying his or her role in society? Perhaps it is the response that was sought carrying of itself the required information? Possibly it is simply a convenient and comfortable pigeon-hole for all concerned that will not generally speaking elicit any further mental effort or soul-searching on the way we define identity (present company excepted)? All of these things at various different times one would suspect, the point is that you are unlikely to respond with the name you choose to call yourself when somebody asks you what your role is. I think Rahael said something similar to this a while back but from another angle, you are best at being you, so be you kind of thing - and quite right too. But people don't say I'm a Rahael, or a Celebaelin, or a lunasea, they give their job title or a job description generally speaking.

On the other hand if you were to ask SMG that question she might justifiably reply "I'm Buffy on televisions' Buffy the Vampire Slayer." I think the vampire slayer portion of that title was just how things worked out initially to give the uninitiated a handle on what kind of show it was (quirky, humouresque, horror). This was not needed when Angel started as the show, at least in part, had a premade fanbase. What I'm getting at is that of all people actors, particularly method actors, are defined by the roles they play and the role is largely defined by the lines, in combination with the setting naturally (Q. "What are you doing?" A. "I'm giving them my Hamlet."). The series could turn out to be rather dull if it were called "The School Counselor." or even "Buffy the School Counselor."

We as the audience associate far less with a character whose name we do not know, as if in the human psyche the association of a name with an individual grants an additional access to the persona, or the dramatis persona as the case may be. It is my belief that to some extent all that any of the characters in any drama can encompass convincingly on screen must come from within the actors portraying those characters to some extent. It may be (usually is) necessary to charicature an element of personality in order to provide an attention grabbing portrayal but larger than life events fit better with larger than life physicality and genuine poise and reactions would likely seem awkward and disinterested in that order. What all this says about SMG when you consider her portrayal of a girl with a (not so) secret identity as the slayer is not something I feel competent to comment on but I'm sure it's very deep whatever it is. Batman is easier, Bruce Wayne does not behave like Batman, he doesn't interact with the world in the same way, he has a vested interest in being secretive or perhaps even subtly evasive. However in the end it is the truth, or a form of truth, that Bruce Wayne IS Batman (or Batman IS Bruce Wayne depending on which personality you think is encompassed by the other). Now if Batman chose to disguise himself as an actor playing The Joker on a fact based drama film set in a production funded by Bruce Wayne that would be mildly amusing to film to say the least.

Where was I? Oh yes, we are defined by our roles I agree, and I also agree that this is not necessarily a good and healthy thing for personal development. You need to find the answers to your 'what?'s, but to do that you need to find your 'what?'s. Confusingly there are many ways of using that interrogative (colloquially at least) - Am I right or what? Perhaps phrasing the question properly is at least half the job of finding the answer, and perhaps not!

Wanders off scratching his head trying to figure out a clearer phraseology.

C

[> [> [> Re: Labels -- lunasea, 04:52:56 03/04/03 Tue

"What do you do?" I am typing on the computer and watching cartoons with my toddler. Thank you for asking. What do you do?

Present tense. Not what will you be doing. Not what have you done. How many answer it that way? How many think of it that way? We define ourselvse more by what we have done and what we will do than what we are doing.

[> [> [> [> Re: Labels -- Celebaelin, 09:47:13 03/04/03 Tue

For myself, when friends 'phones me up and ask me what I am doing I regularly say that I'm on the telephone talking to them. It's intended as a joke but there is a serious side beyond the semantic quibble about "What were you doing before you picked up the telephone to talk to me?" or "What will you be doing after this conversation has finished and you put the phone down?" particularly if we are indeed defined by our activities.

After about the twelfth time of hearing I suppose that answer could become vaguely annoying but sticking with easy familiarity is always tempting, and thence I suspect comes the unthinking 'job description' response.

I wonder what your response would be if someone were to say "How do you do." to you. Answers not to exceed 5,000,000 words or 5 years duration whichever is the lesser.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Labels -- lunasea, 10:25:17 03/04/03 Tue

I wonder what your response would be if someone were to say "How do you do."

I really don't know. Everytime I think I've figured it out, it changes. :-)

I really am one of those people that doesn't like to define herself, beyond pronouns (that contain gender) which are required to have a workable conversation. I don't fill out net profiles and tend to avoid get to know you questionaires. The main reason is that my answers are always changing and if someone interacts with me based on stuff that used to be true, it tends to mess things up.

Someone wrote that the regular people seem to get a handle on identity earlier than the powerful ones. That is because Xander doesn't have to hear a thousand times a day "You're the Slayer." That sort of repetition has an effect on you. I try to stay away from it.

The more I find myself, the more I loose her. I've given up on the quest. I am quest-free.

[> 'Everything I say is a lie. Except what isn't.' (spoilers for S7; spec) -- Darby, 09:39:09 03/03/03 Mon

Okay, I've had a chance to think about this, and I want to stretch your concepts - hope I don't distort them beyond all resemblance.

Magic has consequences, usually of the balancing kind. The First is fed up with balance, so it says, the whole "mortal coil" thing.

The Slayer was created to battle the "vampires, the demons, the forces of Darkness." They've done a pretty good job, because, hey, world still here. They have their role, and it's a balance between the "Good" and the "Evil," set in place before recorded history, created in a barren underground shrine by shaman who were at least metaphorically blind.

So what happened? Buffy died, and the Slayer power that was supposed to reside in a single human at a time was now in two, the balance shifted. But not much, with the advent of Angelus and Faith. But the duplication of the Slayer had a consequence, one that had happened before when the forces of "Good" got an advantage - a disembodied balancing force, assigned to keep things from getting too out of hand. When needed, it accessed a cult and "became" the First. Maybe it had done so in the past, maybe this was the First time.

Vamps killed? Apocalypse averted? All part of the Basic Slayer service, and for all intents and purposes there was just one Active Slayer. But this Slayer was messing up the balance in other ways: Angel clawed his way back from Hell for her. The First, channeled through the Bringers, attempted to set things Right and was repulsed, but its power, born of a somewhat minor magical mishap, was limited and it dissipated.

But the second resurrection, that was much more of an Event, producing a much more powerful version of the balancing force ("What, again???" it must have cried, figuring it was time to say, "Screw the balance!" and eliminate the Slayer line entirely.) Again, it let events play out - who knew, for a while it looked like the Slayer would just continue as the only active Slayer, as before, no imbalance to address.

But it happened again. I like your suggestion that the resouling of Spike was a spontaneous event that the First manipulated - it matches the story of Angel. But how did it happen? Spike's connection to Buffy was responsible, and it is that connection that the First has manipulated (as it did with Angel) and failed to weaken.

Maybe this has to come down to a Spike - Angel confrontation, a way to turn their feelings for Buffy negative. It could desoul Spike, making him great fodder as an Occasional Guest Star for the spinoff. What it would do to Angel and Buffy is less clear (an Angel with a human Angel and vamp Spike?). I suspect that a spell concentrating the Slayer power in a single individual will be needed as well.

[> Two things -- Tchaikovsky, 11:42:22 03/03/03 Mon

On His Dark Materials, God isn't exactly evil. He's an exceptionally old and frail being, who is guarded by a really scary bodyguard called Metatron. The idea is that the God has set up the idea of 'The Kingdom of Heaven' because he was around first, and so thought it would be good to seize the power. The battle going on in the background of Lyra and Will's personal stuggles is excessively complex, (couldn't believe it was put out as a children's book). Simply, Lyra's Mother is on the side of conservatism and Christian values- even if these values mean death, castration or torture of innocents, (it's not quite castration, actually something even more horrible). Lyra's Father is on the side of rebellion- of knocking down God's empire, of beating the old order because it can be beaten. However, he is so hell-bent on revolution, he too will sacrifice what is morally right just in order to right what he conceives to be the Ultimate Wrong- hierarchical religion. By the end of 'Northern Lights' the first movement of the trilogy, Lyra is estranged from both of them.

And the book deliberately moves away from the grown-ups battle towards the end- instead looking at the two children, and coming to a brave conclusion about just what is important. And it ain't just love. Ultimately, power and paradise are for all, and Lyra and Will, in their own ways, start out on an explicit mission to build in the final words of the trilogy 'The Republic of Heaven'.

One of the greatest works of fantasy narrative of the last 100 years. Makes Harry Potter look like ill-conceived bubble-gum.

I don't think Whedon is brave enough to say that God is the Big Bad on American Network TV, although I for one would applaud his courageousness if he did. Just because it's something interesting to think about. But I can see his ending closely paralleling what I took from 'His Dark Materials', that the personal triumphs over the apocalyptic battles, and that true paradise is to be found by living heaven in life.

[Incidentally, and irrelevantly, the portrayal of Pullman's version of Hades is extremely creepy].

OT-ically, on 'Reprise', Minear said it was a pun on 'Surprise', but I can see the links both within Season Two of Angel and back to 'Amends', so the ambiguity of te title works somewhat in its favour, linking back and forth throughout the canon.

TCH

[> [> TCH is right on His Dark Materials -- skat, 11:52:03 03/03/03 Mon

Known as The Golden Compass, The Subtle Knife and The Amber Spyglass in US. And they do make CS Lewis and Harry Potter look like bubble-gum in comparision. It really throws the whole creation myth and concept of good and evil on it's side. I was amazed that fundamentalist Christians went after Harry Potter but ignored His Dark Materials - probably because Pullman is so wonderfully metaphorical that most people don't see it.

Amazing series of fantasy books - highly recommend. And I see reflections of what Whedon is attempting in Buffyverse in them.

[> [> [> Honey, the fundamentalist Christians.. -- dream, 12:19:31 03/03/03 Mon

who went after Harry Potter had never HEARD of His Dark Materials. Book three of HDM has an Amazon rank #50,308 versus #1, for book five in the Harry Potter series, which isn't even out yet.

I don't think it's quite fair to compare the two - sometimes I want something a little more bubblegum - the Monkees, not the White Album, you know? And I do think the Harry Potter series has been improving, while I found the first two Dark Materials books amazing, and the last one a bit of a disappointment. Definitely would recommend them, though. I gave the set to my nephew for Christmas - I'm sure my sister, a deeply conservative Catholic, would not have been thrilled to realize the act of subversion that was going on. Fortunately, as you say, metaphor covers up a lot of potentially dangerous thinking....

[> [> [> [> Re: Honey, the fundamentalist Christians.. -- J, 13:15:06 03/03/03 Mon

IMHO, "Northern Lights / The Golden Compass" is the weakest of the three books, although I admit you could see the ending of the series from a mile away.

I actually think the message of "His Dark Materials" is straightforward rather than metaphorical. The death of the authority (who is explicitly called "God" on at least one occasion in book three) comes with a whimper, but that's part of the point, isn't it?

[> [> [> [> Maybe fundies are not good with metaphor -- Gyrus, 13:34:41 03/03/03 Mon

I guess people who take everything in the Bible as _literal_ truth are bound to have trouble picking up on allegory and metaphor in general. Makes me wonder if they object to THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA, too.

[> [> [> [> [> re: I object to the term 'fundies' -- Corwin of Amber, 13:51:23 03/03/03 Mon

I really object to the term 'fundies'. It's so belittling.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Sorry, got carried away -- Gyrus, 14:21:52 03/03/03 Mon

I'm not crazy about people who think that we should all burn in Hell for watching BUFFY (or for a lot of other things, for that matter), but I shouldn't have used such a derogatory term. Apologies.

[> [> [> [> [> Gonna have to stop you there, G-man. -- HonorH, 16:02:01 03/03/03 Mon

I'm probably what you'd qualify as a "fundie" myself, and you should know by now that I'm not *quite* that dense. Also, there's a difference between believing the Bible to be *truth* and literal *fact*. I believe in its truth. Facts are a different thing altogether, but that would take up an entire thesis.

Unfortunately, however, you are right that some Christians even object to Narnia and LotR. Methinks *they* don't have all the facts.

[> [> [> [> [> [> _Literal_ truth -- Gyrus, 16:10:56 03/03/03 Mon

I tried to emphasize the word _literal_ in my first post, because I'm talking about the people who believe that the Bible is word-for-word historical fact. I tend to think that these are the people most threatened by BTVS, Harry Potter, etc., because they don't get that these series are not meant to portray the truth in a literal sense.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Request for clarification -- matching mole, 17:15:15 03/03/03 Mon

This is purely a request for information - no judgement of any kind is implied.

My understanding has been the term Christian fundamentalists referred to those who believe that the Bible is highly accurate documentation of actual events. In other words the earth is only a few thousand years old, it was created in seven days, a great flood covered the entire surface of the world for 40 days and all terrestrial life is descended from plants and animals taken onto an ark. And so on.

Is my understanding of the term false? If I understand your distinction between facts and truth correctly then aren't all Christians fundamentalists? Presumably one of the criteria for being a Christian is a belief in the truth of the bible - whether literal or metaphorical.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Request for clarification -- Corwin of Amber, 17:37:54 03/03/03 Mon

As I understand it, the term 'fundamentalist Christian' means one who takes the Bible as literal truth, and here's the real distinction...that the Bible is the only source of spiritual truth. There are other Christian sects that take the Bible as metaphoric/symbolic/spiritual truth, or that refer to tradition in addition to Scripture.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> A good question -- Rahael, 10:28:54 03/04/03 Tue

When I was growing up, the church services I attended were not in English. Often, the passages I read, or were read to me were not in English. When I was a little older, and I was accustomed to reading in English, I gave up the non-English version entirely, the effect of which was to endow the non-English version with a mystical aura. It also set the English version on the same level as any other English text, and this unconsciously so.

I could not help, even in the early days approach text as text. After all, aren't words important? powerful? The act of creation, for instance. Logos.

Sometimes I used to read aloud, and people around me would keep up running commentaries. Critical, questioning, interpreting. Even the Bible we had, was after all, a translation. It is also clear that the tradition that I was baptised into placed more of an emphasis on the New over the Old. And there, we have differing versions of events. We have four different, sometimes contradictory narrations.

There are some parts of the Bible I would actively reject, or 'set into context'. There are some that are so much a part of me and my world view that I wouldn't even be aware of me articulating it.

When I was younger, I would certainly have agreed that there was more 'truth' in the Bible than in any other of the religious groupings we grew up with. But now, I'm questioning of this idea, 'truth'. There are many, and the Bible contains more than one.

And the reason I say this is not only my opinion, but the fact that once the vernacular Bible started to become a presence, we had a veritable explosion of religious cultures/sub groups/groupings in Europe. (I could digress endlessly and also say that pre Reformation Catholicism successfully contained much divergent and, sometimes eccentric strains of religious culture, but I'm trying to be concise!).

So I could say that I would have to hem and haw and quibble about signing my name to a statement which said "The Bible is the truth", preferring to say instead that it is a complex text, showing the imprint of intrepretation, tradition, history, etc, (and that I find it all the more beautiful for that) articulating many important ideas.

And I still call myself a Christian!! I may be judged as not being so, but considering the history of Christianity, I'm probably one of the less eccentric believers. What would be made of Milton's belief that for man to grow closer to God, Adam and Eve had to sin, had to develop rationality, had to eat from the tree of knowledge, because God was truth, and our minds are the instrument to comprehend him? The list goes on and on.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> can't help myself -- tim, 11:15:32 03/04/03 Tue

Part of my job is studying religion, so I can't help but add my $.02 here.

The term "fundamentalist" comes from a book called something like The Fundamentals of Christianity, published toward the beginning of the the 20th century. Basically, it laid down the principles of what Christians (from a fundmentalist's perspective, of course) absolutely had to believe in order to call themselves Christian. It professed to be wholly based on the Bible, and included textual matters (Adam and Eve were real people who were really cast out of a real garden; Jesus was born of a virgin, lived, died, and was resurrected in his original body) and other issues of belief (you must have a conversion experience to fully accept the truth of the Gospel story; Heaven and Hell and physical places--and there are still those who believe that if you had a rocket ship with enough fuel you could eventually reach Heaven).

So yes, your interpretation is pretty much accurate. I don't see how that implies that all Christians are fundamentalists. My parents, for instance, are staunch proponents of evolution and choose to accept the Garden story as metaphorical rather than literal--Man and Woman have sinned and are no longer in a perfect relationship with God. Fundamentalists would decry this as not taking the Bible seriously enough, even though my parents would certainly consider themselves devout Christians. As I understand HonorH, she's distinguishing between the Bible as a history book and the Bible as a place of spiritual enlightenment, one which may even have some privelege in that domain over other holy books. As I understand Christianity, all Christians will believe that the Bible provides some spiritual enlightenment, some will say that it holds privelege, some will even claim that it is the only divinely-inspired source for that enlightenment. Only fundamentalists, however, will view it as a history book.

--th

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: can't help myself -- matching mole, 11:37:46 03/04/03 Tue

I wouldn't describe all Christians as fundamentalists myself. I was just intrigued by HonorH's statement because she identified herself as a fundamentalist but made what seemed to me, as a moderately ignorant outsider, a non-fundamentalist statement (i.e. Bible as source of truth rather than facts). So I wanted to be sure that I hadn't been interpreting the term fundamentalist wrong all these years.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I wouldn't call myself a fundamentalist but... -- Scroll, 12:25:42 03/04/03 Tue

I'm not sure why HonorH calls herself a fundamentalist because AFAIK "fundamentalist" means accepting the ENTIRE Bible as literal fact and historically accurate. I am a Christian who believes the Bible holds the truth, and is divinely inspired by God, but I don't really believe the universe was created in exactly six 24-hour days.

Now, I believe there are huge chunks of the Bible that are historically accurate -- mostly the New Testament stuff. A lot of the New Testament can be corroborated with external sources (i.e. letters, Roman records, etc). I even think parts of the Old Testament are historically accurate (lineage of kings, Babylonian exile, etc). But I'm sure some parts have been translated and re-translated so much that we're only getting a fuzzy picture of what originally happened.

I believe in reading the Bible in context if we want to apply it to 21st century life.

Let me run down your list of things a fundamentalist believes:

Adam and Eve were real people who were really cast out of a real garden: Even though I don't believe the universe was created in six days, I do believe in the Creation Story as fact. Maybe that's contradictory. I believe Adam and Eve were real people, that they really did eat fruit they shouldn't have, and God kicked them out of the Garden. Now, I also believe the Eden story can be read as metaphorical. But I think Adam and Eve still existed as actual people.

Jesus was born of a virgin, lived, died, and was resurrected in his original body: Yes. Very much yes. Scientifically impossible, of course, but that's why they're called miracles :P

you must have a conversion experience to fully accept the truth of the Gospel story: Again, yes. I'm a born-again Christian. I believe the only way to become a Christian at all is to have a "conversion experience" -- whether that means a quiet conversation with God or a full-fledged Paul-on-the-road-to-Damascus-blinded-by-Christ's-holy-light.

Heaven and Hell [are] physical places--and there are still those who believe that if you had a rocket ship with enough fuel you could eventually reach Heaven): This one, not so much. I believe heaven and hell exist -- or in the case of hell, will exist (I don't believe hell will exist until the end of the world). I'm still trying to figure this all out. No firm ideas yet. But the rocket ship to heaven thing is just... well, kinda funny actually :)

Of course, if all that makes me a fundamentalist, then I guess that's what I am.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Hmm, I need to clarify my above post -- Scroll, 12:42:47 03/04/03 Tue

But I'm sure some parts [of the Bible] have been translated and re-translated so much that we're only getting a fuzzy picture of what originally happened.

I actually apply the translation thing more to the New Testament than the Old. Possibly because I find the NT to be more applicable to my 21st C life than the OT, so I don't try as hard to understand the OT.

For example: My Sunday school class is going through the gospel of Matthew right now. Our teachers keep emphasising that we can't read Matthew as if the author was speaking directly to us (21st C Chinese-Canadians). But that we must examine in context, placing ourselves in the shoes/sandals of 1st century Jews, many who were illiterate and had pre-existing notions of who/what the Messiah was supposed to be.

I believe heaven and hell exist -- or in the case of hell, will exist (I don't believe hell will exist until the end of the world).

I should clarify that I don't think heaven and hell can be viewed from our linear perspective. Heaven and hell are outside of time, I think. So when I say I don't think hell will exist until the apocalypse (whatever that ends up being) I don't mean that it doesn't exist now so much as the physical representation of hell (hell being separation from God) won't be made manifest until the end of the world. Does that make sense? I wish I could draw diagrams cuz that would make explaining much easier. If you care... you might not. Many of my friends just roll their eyes when I try to explain my theology. :)

[> [> [> Oh don't get me wrong ... -- s'kat, 14:51:48 03/03/03 Mon

I love the Harry Potter books, reading Goblet of Fire as I write this. And yep they do get darker. I just find the Dark Materials series a tad denser and more thought provoking. Harry Potter makes me think of Ronald Dahl light - it's more a commentary on Modern British/English mores than religious beliefs. Dark Materials is a direct commentary on religious beliefs. Saw more of the fundamentalist Christian ones being hit on than the Catholic. You may not catch it unless you had the pleasure of being in a Christian youth group who believed that the Angels were at war - half the group was God's army and half was Lucifer's and we were being used as pawns in this eternal struggle. Yes - the Christian youth group I was briefly in in College pushed this concept - hence the briefly. His Dark Materials really deals with this whole portion of the religious doctrine. The more conservative sects of several Christian churches are into it. I don't know if Catholics are - they weren't when I was in CCD but I tended to get a fairly liberal Catholic education, so it is possible I missed all this doctrine.

His Dark Materials deals with a war between God's group and the other side or fallen Angels. The bad guys are on God's group...God has become nothing more than a figurehead. And isn't really called God. The archeangle runs the show.
The book also deals with free will, existentialism, the nature of reality and how our actions bend and change it in positive and negative ways. And the idea of duality and souls...and the connection to will. Interesting book psychologically. Very dense. And not light reading.

[> [> [> [> For light reading on the apocalypse... -- Sara, looking at the lighter side of the end of the world, 17:17:13 03/03/03 Mon

try Good Omens by Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett, it does get a little silly in places but it's a very fun look at the war between good and evil, heaven and hell, and actually has an interesting twist on it. Definitely appropriate for the season 7 reading list.

[> [> [> [> [> Ramblings -- fresne, 10:18:00 03/04/03 Tue

We are just in a book recommend state of mind aren't we?

I'll admit I have a copy of His Dark Materials, but have never read it. While I'm not a Fundamentalist Christian, I am a Christian of some dye. My housemate liked HDM, but I just can't seem to make myself want to start. Every time the plot is described I can't help but get Preacher, the comic, flashbacks. A good friend of mine loved it. I couldn't stand the series, which is odd given some of my other comic tastes. For example, Sandman to Good Omens. Very good.

Ah, yes, vagaries of like and dislike. The ever eternal lines in our personal sand gardens. The box of the mind.

And, of course, as a S.F. Bay Area resident, I feel vaguely bad for not wanting to read HDM. It feels un-PC somehow.

In an opposite direction, I saw the 3rd Prophecy movie this weekend. Or a bit of it. Odd that a series of straight to video movies could have such arc. Christopher Walken as the angel Gabriel become a man. Driving his car and playing his horn for the sheer pleasure of playing.

Then again, what I really want is the end of The Last Wizard, whose heroine not only has my normalized name, but the book ends so very, oh, of course. Or you know The Dark Crystal.

No, actually, I want what I dreamed last night. The final episode was very avant guard and I got to meet Joss, who was sitting at Lucy from the Peanut's booth.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Ramblings -- Rahael, 10:36:25 03/04/03 Tue

I consider HDM to be squarely in a tradition of Christian literature, actually.

Since it deals with the Christian tradition, invoking resonances, themes, poetry, the tradition of Christian thought. It is not only Miltonic, but Blakean, and I think engenders a sense of the sanctity of humanity, the beauty of the world, the beauty of holiness....one of the final events really evokes a sense for me of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. And considered in the Miltonic framework, it might not be anti-Christian at all.

I don't know if this helps, but I think, speaking in terms of radicalness, we've seen all of this before, articulated long before now.

I recommend it, anyway. I love his other books too - you might find those more palatable as they are strictly secular. They are more for young adults but I find the Sally Lockhart stories both fun, and ultimately, complex and moving, and the standalone Teen fic both powerful and true.

[> [> [> [> Another book I would recommend... -- Peggin, 18:58:09 03/03/03 Mon

... is To Reign in Hell, by Steven Brust. It's a great story about the Revolt of the Angels at the beginning of time, leading to Satan and his followers getting expelled from Heaven. What I love about this book is that the war comes down to two irreconcilable points of view, neither of which is entirely wrong. Satan and his followers are "evil" only in the sense that revolt against God, but there is just as much merit (if not more) in their position as there is in the position taken by the other side.

[> [> 'Reprise' reprised: a little touch of melancholy in the night -- cjl, 12:43:13 03/03/03 Mon

Yes, I saw shadowkat's transcript of Minear's comments. It WAS a reference to "Surprise," rather than "Amends"--although I find "Amends" and "Seeing Red" to be the closer parallels. (Perfect despair, rather than perfect happiness as the catalysts for change.)

Amazing thought, that in Joss Whedon's world, it's perfect happiness that leads to disaster, and perfect despair that leads to change, and therefore, HOPE. Love is pain and pain leads you to your gift....

[> [> [> Re: 'Reprise' reprised: a little touch of melancholy in the night -- s'kat, 14:38:52 03/03/03 Mon

Amazing thought, that in Joss Whedon's world, it's perfect happiness that leads to disaster, and perfect despair that leads to change, and therefore, HOPE. Love is pain and pain leads you to your gift....

A metaphor that oddly enough works throughout the episodes, the only way I can tell if it's valid is:
1. Can you track through the episodes
2. Do the writers admit to it in commentary on episodes
3. Do other posters see it as well

If you hit all three points? Yep that's the metaphor they are using. Give the theorist a prize. And this metaphor guys - can be tracked not only all the way through Btvs episodes but also ATs. Minear, Whedon, Noxon, and Greenwalt all admit to it in commentaries. And other posters see it.

So tracking back?In Grave - Spike hits rock bottom gets his award. Hits rock bottom in SR - decides to go do it or gets it assuming you by cjl's theory (I'm on the fence...I'm waiting for proof - just like I was when Darby first mentioned it way back in June - was the Lurker lights and mirrors? Did Spike really get the soul in SR when he showed actual remorse? Don't know, it's too blasted unclear and doesn't fit the theorem above exactly - close...but need more.) In Sleeper - Spike gets Buffy's help and her to talk to him when is literally at rock bottom, wanting death. In Amends - Angel gets forgiveness at rock bottom. In Selfless - Anya hits rock bottom and get sympathy from Xander. In Weight of The World -The Gift the answer comes to Buffy when she hits rock bottom. In Hero - Doyle hits rock bottom, kills himself is redeemed and yes half the fanbase groaned (praying ME doesn't do this EVER again, twice was more than enough - both times on Angel with Doyle and Darla). In Grave - Buffy notices how wonderful the world is when she is literally at rock bottom. Yep...you hit despair = rewarded. You get really happy? Watch out!!

Cordy get's really happy and Angel gets really happy in Tomorrow - Hooo Boy! Bad news. Willow and Tara get really happy in Seeing Red - Real Bad News. Connor gets his happy in Apocalypse Nowish - not a good. Fred and Gunn are very happy start of Supersymmetry. Methinks if I lived in the Buffyverse I would start worrying the moment things got really good - much better to be miserable. ;-)

[> [> [> [> Such is the nature of TV drama -- Gyrus, 15:29:32 03/03/03 Mon

Characters who are consistently happy or miserable do not make for interesting TV. Real life is a sine wave of ups and downs; to make TV dramas more interesting than real life, they have to make the ups and downs bigger and more sudden. Having built a world full of visions, curses, and opportunities for heroism and villany, ME can whip us up and down like we're riding the Shockwave at Six Flags, and we eat it up. Not that there's anything wrong with that. :)

[> [> [> [> Hasn't it become a cliche though? -- yabyumpan, 18:26:02 03/03/03 Mon

In fact, possibly worse than a cliche, it's become predictable. We all know that as soon as someone on either programe starts to feel 'happy' it's going to be torn away from them. On many forums you can find polls when a particualr relationship starts for how long it will last and what terrible thing is going to break it up. It does seem that when it all started, BtVS was about subverting cliches, which they've done sucessfully, but in the process they've created their own.

Amazing thought, that in Joss Whedon's world, it's perfect happiness that leads to disaster, and perfect despair that leads to change, and therefore, HOPE. Love is pain and pain leads you to your gift....

I think that's true and I'm actually pretty uncomfortable with that. It's like saying that the path to enlightenment is suffering, in other words, Asceticism, which even the Buddha rejected after 6 years, saying it got him no where. I would actually like to see ME come out of this mindset, esp in this last season of BtVS.

While I wouldn't have liked this last 7 years to be 'The Waltons with Vampires', I think 'enlightenment though suffering' is actually a pretty negative message. Though to an extent, it's the way things tend to be, it's not always the way they are, or the way, IMO, they should be.

[> [> [> [> [> Except that it is a horror show...and that's a vital elemet of it -- s'kat, 21:12:02 03/03/03 Mon

You have to remember the genre you're in - it's a horror show. Horror means suffering and pain and death and worste case scenerio. (Unless you've read happy horror, I haven't - dark fantasy comes closest. Most horror ain't.) If you don't like that message...horror may just be the wrong genre for you. People have a tendency to think Angel and Btvs are just dark fantasy and therefore like some not most dark fantasy should have a happy ending and happy relationships while the principals fight that evil and save the day a la Scooby Doo and Ghostbusters... but all the commentary I've read makes it clear the shows are based on horror genre, complete with angst and pain. And even though the writers are subverting the genre with humor, that pain is still an essential element.

So my advice is...if you want a happy comforting show? Try Charmed, Smallville, Gilmore Girls, West Wing, ER, any number of shows on the air. These millions to choose from. Most of my friends don't watch Btvs and Angel because they are too dark for them, too angsty, too uncomfortable. They want to feel happy. Personally, I'm weird, I like angst. It's one of the reasons I watch them.

[> [> [> [> [> Thanks! -- Rahael, 05:42:51 03/04/03 Tue

I couldn't agree more with you.

A long while ago, I kept posting about metamorphosis. Which happens in a moment of heat and fracturing. Transformations (for better or worse) at crucial times. Sometimes this occurs while being drained in an alley. Sometimes when you drink the wrong gypsy girl. Sometimes in a cave in Africa.

Metamorphosis is now clearly signified as powerful events - but I don't think this is always good. Perhaps it is what you make of yourself afterwards. A young girl, chained up, having metamorphosis imposed on her - despite the darkness, still retaining her humanity. And the twin questions. Who are we after these moments of shattering and fracturing and change? Are we the same? Are we new made?

I mean, perfect happiness, strictly speaking does lead to change for Angel. And Angel was suffering before he and Darla did the deed, but the full enormity of what he was doing only struck him at that very moment. I wouldn't define sex with Darla exactly as suffering per se. He reached out to someone else, and found something, not what she was expecting, but still.

However, I think ME do need to watch out. After all, Fred's parents were an explicit acknowledgement of a cliche ME had built up. There may be a deep resonance in that cliche - that we all find some of our greatest pain when we should be happiest - in intimate relationships with those we should care most about - but it would be nicer if every single relationship didn't have an instant shelf life. Reduces on the surprise element.

[> [> [> [> Happiness has to result from something -- lunasea, 21:32:26 03/03/03 Mon

Buffy was completely happy jumping off the platform. Angel was really happy after his Epiphany. Happiness that results from wisdom is great and tends to last longer. It is happiness the results from circumstances or pleasure that ends up in disaster.

I think ME's comments are about the transitory nature of happiness and suffering. From these extreme suffering moments comes not only growth but an incredible joy. From the extreme happy moments, when they stop comes suffering. Buffy's happiness from Grave took a while (CwDP) to really wear off. Angel's Epiphany kept him going for a while too. That sort of happiness, ME endorses.

[> [> [> My horoscope for this week -- ponygirl, 08:54:45 03/04/03 Tue

"Is hope overrated? While it can provide consolation when life is painfully confounding, the Sufi poet Rumi suggested that it may actually get in the way of finding a cure. "When water gets caught in habitual whirlpools," he wrote, "dig a way out through the bottom to the ocean. There is a secret medicine given only to those who hurt so hard they cannot hope. The hopers would feel slighted if they knew." What if Rumi was right, Aries? Speaking on behalf of the astrological omens, I advise you to let hopelessness be your guide in the coming week."

Maybe you and Rob Brezsny are on the same cosmic wavelength, cjl! Of course, you I can understand, my horoscopes on the other hand...

[> Gnostic Buffy? Also in His Dark Materials -- luna, 18:44:17 03/03/03 Mon

First, I hope some of you out there know more than I about this and will correct my errors.

That said, I consistently find Gnosticism to be the only world-view that really fits the Buffyverse. The evident power of the world is evil, and only a few are enlightened in some way to see that evil. The material universe ultimately sucks--nobody so far has a really good, lasting physical relationship with anyone, and often (Oz, Angel) sex turns men into demons. At least one of the characters, Dawn, is admittedly pure spirit.

The FE to me acts like a demiurge. It animates the dead, creates despair, and ultimately intends the total corruption of the universe.

What's missing is Sophia, the wisdom that sees this and leads beyond it. I don't see Buffy in that role, although she's female, but perhaps. It seems more like Gnosticism without hope.

It's been a year or so since I read His Dark Materials, but I remember hearing Gnostic bells ring in that, too.

[> cjl--any of those spoilers for future eps? -- anom, still twice shy, 19:38:16 03/03/03 Mon

I quit reading when I saw a reference to 7.21--is that definite spoilery or just spec? How safe is the rest of the thread?

[> [> Would I do that to you, anom? (Spoiler-free, except for title of 7.22) -- cjl, 06:56:10 03/04/03 Tue

The Opening Shot of Buffy 7.15 -- David Frisby, 03:13:26 03/03/03 Mon

The script for Buffy 7.15 (Storyteller) is up on psyche. Here's how it opens:

INT. ELEGANT STUDY - NIGHT

As in the opening of Masterpiece Theatre, we PAN ACROSS LEATHER-BOUND VOLUMES (including some Collected Nietzsche, Joseph Campbell, Tolkein, and bound editions of BATMAN and SPIDER-MAN comics) to find ANDREW sitting in a leather chair in front of a cozy fire in a fireplace. He wears a fancy smoking jacket, holds a pipe and studies an open volume on his lap. He looks up and "discovers" the audience.

Interesting choice of volumes. I looked carefully, while pausing, and could still only make out NIETZSCHE and THE COLLECTED WORKS OF WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE. I'm not familiar with the usual degree of differentiation between the script and the final shown product, althought I know they do sometimes differ (for example, the scene of Amy's mother still trapped in the season four episode where the gang return to the hellmouth to save the world again).

Anyone else able to see any Campbell or Tolkien? I wonder if Shakespeare was added at the last minute (reflecting those Sunday readings Joss holds)? I am so glad to see however that the inclusion of NIETZSCHE was an intentional act by the writers of ME. I think it is things like this that add so much to the quality of this show.

David Frisby

[> My Friend's response to that scene -- neaux, 04:29:38 03/03/03 Mon

So I was talking to my friend about that episode, and the first thing he said was he couldnt believe the episode started out like "JOE MILLIONAIRE".

While we would like to think Buffy was trying to make it look like Masterpiece theater, the fact that the videocameras are used throughout the episode, I can understand why my friend thought Joe Millionaire, due to the reality based shows out there.

[> [> Master-reality Theater? -- leslie, 11:23:27 03/03/03 Mon

Farscape Question -- Meritaten, 04:02:40 03/03/03 Mon

Hello,

I don't get cable, so I've never had a chance to watch Farscape, but had always heard that it was an excellent show. I'm traveling overseas now and have had access to cable for a couple of weeks. Farscape is being shown. (Buffy. however is NOT, so please no references to anything on Buffy since early December. I'm having serious Buffy withdrawal, but want to watch the story unfold on video when I get back, so I'm staying unspoiled.) Anyway, I'm finally getting to see Farscape, but I just don't get it. I can't follow what is happening. Is this a show that you have to watch from the very beginning to understand? I really respect the opinions of the posters here, and have noted how upset many of you were when this show was canceled. Right now, though, I'm having trouble understanding the appeal of the show. Am I missing something? Did the show start out better and then change? (THe last episode I saw was when the human guy lost the connection with the guy with the leather mask who seemed to be connected to his brain. AS I said, I have trouble following it!) Please understand that I am not trying to criticize the show, but rather trying to understand what many of you see in it. I didn't like Buffy right away either!

Thanks!

[> Re: Farscape Question -- Miss Edith, 06:05:57 03/03/03 Mon

If you check out the website Farscape World it will take you through the story so far and introduce you to the characters under the section A Farscape Primer: Love and Life, Lost in Outer Space. It's designed especially to introduce newbies to the show as Farscape can be tricky to get into. Farscape was cancelled by Bonnie Hammer because she found it too complicated to follow so assumed audiences found as well and it will be replaced by cheap reality shows such as Scare Tactics. (The cost of the production was also a factor in the cancellation). Go to htt://www.farscapeworld.com/other/other/primer.shtml for the story so far along with pictures.

There are plenty of humerous recaps to check out if snarky reviews are your thing. The Diet Coke of Snark is worth a look IMO.
We also have episodes available for downloading if you want to catch up on past episodes. We have a FAQ webpage for those who have difficulty with downloading.

The guy in the leater mask and cooling suit you are confused by is Scorpuis. He is connected to John the main characters brain through the clone Harvey which has sent John mad in the past and caused him to kill the woman he loved. Sorry to confuse you even more, Farscape World will clear your confusion up hopefully.

[> [> Re: Farscape Question -- Miss Edith, 06:13:47 03/03/03 Mon

And just wanted to add that yes Farscape does require concentration and is hard to get into with random episodes. Its cancellation was because it will not appeal to the masses, you need to think and pay attention when watching it as past episodes may hold essential clues for the unfolding plot. I must admit sometimes I miss something essential and part of the fun is discussing it with other fans and unravelling the mystery. As with Buffy Farscape has a small but dedicated fanbase and the writers interact with the fans on-line. We have had three seperate commercials produced by the fans protesting the cancellation and trying to find new viewers.

A new episode of Farscape is on the bbc tonight and it actually gets great ratings over here even though the beeb utterly fail to promote it in any way. Unfortunately the show will be cancelled if more viewers in the US don't start watching.

[> [> [> What Miss Edith said. -- Rob, 08:23:01 03/03/03 Mon

Farscape is a challenging show and not a show that's easy to watch a single episode of, at random. But it is very, very worth getting into. And I'm saying this, even though it's been cancelled by SciFi. And nope, the quality of the show has not gone down. The quality of the network that cancelled it, has.

Rob

[> Listen to Miss Edith and Rob, Farscape is very much worth the effort. -- Ixchel, 09:21:41 03/03/03 Mon

It's the only show that can rival BtVS and AtS in my affections. It has many of the aspects I love in BtVS and AtS: multifaceted characters, long story arcs, continuous building on and reference to previous seasons, etc.

For an entertaining way to catch up, may I suggest The Tourist's Guide to the Uncharted Territories (http://perriverse.dreamhost.com/farscape). This site has good (IMHO) synopses and quotes.

BTW, Buffy has been mentioned twice by the main character (John Crichton) in the course of the show, it seems he is a BtVS fan (I imagine the writers are too). :)

Ixchel

[> Re: Farscape Question -- Silky, 11:43:44 03/03/03 Mon

Farscape will be hard to understand if you come into it now -- but it is a fabulous show, with amazing characters and great continuity. Much as I love Buffy, Angel and Firefly, I still think Farscape beats them all for sheer creativity. It is amazing and the humor is over the top. If you get a chance to see an ep called 'Revenging Angel' don't miss it.

And SciFi cancelled it so we could have Tremors, the Series and stupid, boring SciFi original movies. Once Farscape ends, my cable is going.

Thanks for links, too. I didn't have those.

Silky

[> [> Re: Farscape Question -- Miss Edith, 12:20:39 03/03/03 Mon

Farscape is my favourite show too. It even beats Buffy for me. The episode I just watched was truly incredible. They are not cancelling this show, I won't let them! "Everything I have seen so far is despicable!" "Welcome to the Federation Starship SS Buttcrack!"

[> [> Tremors is Cracked :/ -- WickedBuffy ::still angry about Sliders::, 16:46:50 03/03/03 Mon

I still cannot fathom HOW they will make a season of Tremors. Three movies was stretching it!

But I guess the kudos will go to the writers if they can actually pull it off. What a challenge. I'm going to have to tune in just to see how they are going to do it.

[> [> Re: Farscape Question -- LadyStarlight, 06:41:10 03/04/03 Tue

Tremors, the Series, is a go then?? Oh well, my kids will be happy. (the movies are what they prefer to watch when they have a choice.)

[> Drell! I'd give 'em my left kidney if they wouldn't cancel ::sob:: -- WickedThoughtsAboutAerynSun O:>, 13:24:09 03/03/03 Mon

I've watched Farscape since Day One. It's my favorite show and has been for a few years now. (Buffy is second, sorry - but a CLOSE second!)

But if I miss even ONE episode, I really miss it. I'm lost. I hate it! It's not hard to keep up with it you see them all in order, though. Seriously, if you can, watch the old episodes first so you can enjoy the entire adventure - reading is ok, but really try to "see" them if at all possible. Maybe you can tape the ones coming up to watch later after you start from the start?

I have the first season on DVD, USA (not sure if I have a second one - or if they have the third one out or not) so you might be able to find/borrow/rent/purchase those if you can't find what you need online.

You get to learn new alien words, too. Several swearing types. ;>

Wow, Miss Edith - are there scripts someplace, too? and I'm not clear on who "we" is in your sentences: "We also have episodes available for downloading if you want to catch up on past episodes. We have a FAQ webpage for those who have difficulty with downloading." we where?

[> [> Typo! I think ya meant 'Frell.' ;o) -- Rob, 13:46:00 03/03/03 Mon

[> [> [> I did, thx Rob!* I smooshed my drens & frells together. :> -- WickedBuffy, 13:54:32 03/03/03 Mon

[> [> [> [> LOL! At least ya didn't smoosh your 'tralks' together. ;o) -- Rob, 16:56:45 03/03/03 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> You mean my 'trelks'? LOL! I'll need to hire some first! ;> -- WickedBuffy ::looking for red-light district::, 19:10:27 03/03/03 Mon

[> [> Your left kidney! What type of sacrifice is that! -- Miss Edith, 13:55:21 03/03/03 Mon

Try an eye man an eye. When saying "we" I was talking about scapers in general. Since the cancellation we have an organised community. You should definately try to download the two parter just shown in the UK "We're so Screwed". I've just watched the concluding episode La Bomba and wow is all.

And sorry I should have been more clear. Scapers have a link to this page http://www.turok.info/download.shtm It has Buffy episodes as well as the latest Farscape episides which have just aired in the UK.
The FAQ is at http://www.cen.uiuc.edu/~halm/faq.html
Not invented by scapers, we just link to them if US viewers can't stand the wait for new episodes. I don't know if it is okay to have those sites linked to from this page as they aren't strictly legal? And just type Farscape scripts in a search engine and you should find plenty of links.

[> [> [> I was gonna trade my eye to Joss for Buffy? ::sob:: -- WickedBuffy I need my 3D!, 16:41:35 03/03/03 Mon

Thanks for the info - I found the scripts and all kinds of great stuff. I'm on a Mac though, and can't seem to get the torrents to work on it :< (I'm not too techie)

Oh well - I'll keep looking around for some other system. Right now I need to go plaster the town with the "SAVE FARSCAPE" posters I dled.

(Too bad $$ was the major reason for cancelling the show - I can't believe the story that the show was too hard to follow. All my fingers and toes are crossed that someone like Showtime or Fox picks it up!)

ok, my eyes are crossed, too. :>

[> [> [> Re: Your left kidney! What type of sacrifice is that! -- MsGiles, 05:14:09 03/04/03 Tue

It's not the concluding episode is it? I thought we had the last one next week. I sure hope so. It's been my only other weekly TV date:
*fantastic eye candy
*sharp scripts (unlike Babylon5 *sob*)
*some incredible psychotropic storylines (if that's the right word)
so many favourite things. the cartoon episodes. the whole harvey thing. Scorpius finally getting a snog :p
By the way the BBC cult site has a 'so what actually happened?' episode feature for the terminally confused

[> [> Re: Farscape DVD -- Raven_NightDragon, 15:09:32 03/03/03 Mon

The first season is out on DVD, and the last part of the second season was just released within the past few weeks. The first season was released two episodes on one disc at a time, and as a massive box set. The second season was released as 5 two disc sets, with 4 or 5 episodes in each set. The third season's first set should be released soon.

[> [> [> Re: Farscape DVD -- akanikki, 20:43:30 03/03/03 Mon

I have wanted to watch, but haven't as I have access to cable only ever so often. Considered buying the dvds, but the ones I found were always "The Best of" S1, etc. Can you actually buy all of the S1, S2, and soon S3? Any places you'd recommend for the US customer?

[> [> [> [> Amazon.com or Suncoast video. -- Rob, 22:21:32 03/03/03 Mon

[> [> [> [> Re: Farscape DVD -- Raven_NightDragon, 04:30:01 03/04/03 Tue

Best Buy is where I usually get DVD's. In my area at least, they tend to be a little cheaper there than anyplace else I've seen. The full box set for Season 1 is usually between $100 to $120, and the two disc sets for Season two usually runs between $20 and $25 each.

[> Thanks for all the responses.... -- Meritaten, 04:24:36 03/04/03 Tue

I appreciate all the comments that were made. Right now, I don't have the option of starting from the beginning, or even watching regularly. I'm traveling around India and sometimes get a room with a TV.

Perhaps when I get back, I can give this show a chance. However, as a poor grad student (my travel is research-related and not a luxury vacation!), the cost of DVDs is intimidating. I'm buying Buffy and hopefully Angel (used copies at that) as I get the money. The only DVD Player I have is on my computer, so I can't even see these on TV. It may be some time (if ever!) before I can afford to shell out the bucks to try out a show. Does anyone know where I could rent DVDs for a reasonable price - and for long enough to actually watch them? (As a grad student, time is also a factor.)

Again, thanks for your comments. I had thought that a compex series or seasonal plot might be the poblem. One good thing about Buffy is that, in addition to the seasonal story arcs, each episode can stand alone. GRanted, the beauty of the show only becomes apparent as you watch the seasonal story progess, but at least you can understand what is happening! I have to say that, in my attempts to watch Farscape, I've only followed any of the action in one epsiode. Ironically, during that episode, the electricity was out for the last ten minutes of the show - so I still don't know what happened!

Restless and Get It Done -- lunasea, 08:42:29 03/03/03 Mon

I admit that I have tried very hard not to think about Restless, but it just won't leave me alone. Not just the symbolism and themes it addresses, but how it sets up the S5-7 trilogy. The spell in "Primeval" was about "mind, heart and spirit." In "Restless the order was "spirit, heart and mind." In S5-7 the order has been heart, spirit and mind. S5 was about Buffy's ability to love. S6 was about Buffy's spirit and S7 is about Buffy's mind/wisdom.

In Restless the First Slayer was able to kill Willow, Xander and Giles, but not Buffy. Buffy rejects the Manus card and instead has the entire deck with one of everyone on top. Buffy is much more than the hand or what any of her friends are.

In S5 she discovered how bright the fire that is her love is. In S6 she discovered how strong her spirit really is. In S7 she will learn how wise she actually is. S1-4 she really hadn't even begun this.

In "Get it Done," the First Slayer tells her it isn't enough. What isn't? Relate that back to Restless. Seasons 5-7 she is developing heart, spirit and mind. Wisdom will come when she realizes how developed her heart and spirit are. This season, they are back to Xander/Willow levels, regular human level and even below that. It isn't enough. She has to go back to love, give, forgive and the Prayer of St Francis. Then it will be enough.

Giles says that the dreams in Restless was generated because the spell in Primeval was "an affront to the source of that power." In "Get it Done," we saw the demon heart, but those dreams were generated by much more than the First Slayer and that demon heart. The First Slayer is little more than Angel when he is in pure demon form, an unthinking animal. We haven't seen this season what generated the rest of those dreams. When Buffy discovers what this is, then she will know what she is and what's to come.

[> Putting all the parts together -- Gyrus, 12:18:30 03/03/03 Mon

Based on what we've seen so far, here's my theory on what's really going on with the First Evil and the Slayer line:

When humans were introduced to a demon-dominated world, our sole advantage was the human mind. Mind is the one area in which humans are superior to demons; as Adam said, humans are smarter and more adaptable.

But mind wasn't enough to help us wrest the world away from the demons. We needed strength. So we created the Hands -- the Slayer. Alone, she was mindlessly savage, but as our hands obey our brains, the Slayer received guidance from her Watchers.

This pattern continued for thousands of years, each Watcher wielding his Slayer like a blunt instrument against the demons. But there was a problem -- the Watchers possessed intellect, but it was, for the most part, a cold intellect. Compassion, kindness, and love were sacrificed in the name of necessity. Cutting Slayers off from family and friends and subjecting them to the cruel ritual of the Cruciamentum were intended to make the Slayers stronger, but instead only widened the gulf between them and the rest of humanity. In short, the Watchers alienated Slayers from the very people they were meant to protect.

But Buffy is a new kind of Slayer. She embraces not only her mind and hands, but her heart and spirit as well. Her heart allows herself to love others, so that she has the "ties to the world" that Spike says keeps Buffy from succumbing to the death wish that all Slayers have. Her spirit gives her purpose -- she fights evil, not just because someone tells her to, but because it's right.

What I'm wondering is, could this be the reason that the First is able to attack the Slayer line now? Not because the line has been interrupted by Buffy's death and resurrection, but because the Slayers themselves are in the process of evolving into something greater and more complete than they were? (Beljoxa's Eye only said that the Slayer was the reason for the instability in the Slayer line; it didn't say why.) This great leap forward may provide the First a window of opportunity to wipe out the Slayers, but if it fails, they could become stronger than ever before.

What say you?

[> [> Re: Putting all the parts together -- lunasea, 13:22:36 03/03/03 Mon

Her spirit gives her purpose -- she fights evil, not just because someone tells her to, but because it's right.

What I'm wondering is, could this be the reason that the First is able to attack the Slayer line now? Not because the line has been interrupted by Buffy's death and resurrection, but because the Slayers themselves are in the process of evolving into something greater and more complete than they were? (Beljoxa's Eye only said that the Slayer was the reason for the instability in the Slayer line; it didn't say why.) This great leap forward may provide the First a window of opportunity to wipe out the Slayers, but if it fails, they could become stronger than ever before.

Buffy becoming something other than slayer is what the First is taking advantage of. We haven't seen what the First really wants yet. To wipe out the Slayer line so that demons can have this dimension is pretty lame for the FIRST. It is devious. Buffy is just a vehicle to whatever his ultimate goal is. We still have to get back to what It was doing in Amends and possibly in LA.

Buffy (and Angel) don't fight because it is right. They fight because they care. That is what makes them the champions they are.

My own theory is that the PTB Choose people that care. They are the ones that can handle the infusion of the demon. They are the ones that are hurt by the world and can turn that into strength. The WC in their ignorance thinks that caring is a detriment and tries to get that out of the slayers. We saw what Buffy would have been like if she hadn't had Giles as her Watcher, Angel as her boyfriend and the Scoobies as her friends. "The Wish" is important in understanding Buffy and Slayers.

Angel kept Buffy from shutting down. That was his function on the show. Whenever Buffy starts to doubt herself and wants to shy away from the fire, there was Angel to save her. He does this in "What's My Line" when she is getting depressed about Career week and is pretty much accepting her not-normal life. He does this in "Helpless" when all she does is see herself as her Powers. He leaves her because he doesn't want her to settle. He does it in "Forever" when she doesn't think she is strong. When she comes back from seeing him season 6, she is much better. He does it in countless little ways in practically every episode he was in. That is what Angel does. He had to leave the show when her character got to a point where she had to do this for herself. She wouldn't have grown with him around.

We still have to go back and explore the death wish of the Slayer. Why did Buffy's kick in at the beginning of FFL? Why do Slayers have death wish? We did see another's kick in, in "Five-by-Five." Faith was out of control and something inside of her wanted to die. It was the same thing that made Angel want to die in "Angel," their humanity kicked in. Caring/humanity is a check on the demon essence. In season 5, Buffy is starting to question the dark origins of her power. As her life starts to crumble around her, she starts to shut down (and there is no Angel to prevent this this time. Riley couldn't stop it.). As Buffy doesn't care, she gets darker. Her treatment of Spike becomes nasty. There is still that humanity in her and it is what fuels the death wish. It sees its chance to get out and it takes it. All it needs is a moment.

It isn't about ties to the world. It is about having an outlet for that big gigantic Buffy heart. If she doesn't care, she dies. She doesn't live so that those she loves can. She doesn't live because she wants to be with those she loves. She lives because she loves. By loving, she is Buffy.

Not even sure where I was going, so I'll stop.

[> [> [> Re: Putting all the parts together -- Gyrus, 14:16:04 03/03/03 Mon

Buffy (and Angel) don't fight because it is right. They fight because they care.

That's more accurate, yes.

My own theory is that the PTB Choose people that care. They are the ones that can handle the infusion of the demon. They are the ones that are hurt by the world and can turn that into strength.

Then they screwed up pretty badly with Faith. Faith barely cared about herself, let alone anyone else. Of course, the PTBs aren't God, so they don't have to be perfect. And Faith may ultimately prove to be critical to the FE's defeat.

It isn't about ties to the world. It is about having an outlet for that big gigantic Buffy heart.

Same difference, IMO. Having people to care about is what ties Buffy to the world. If she'd been raised in near-isolation (like Kendra), she'd probably be dead by now (like Kendra).

Whenever Buffy starts to doubt herself and wants to shy away from the fire, there was Angel to save her.

Your mentioning Angel makes me wonder: It seems that, while caring gives Buffy strength, it often causes trouble for Angel because he is so monomaniacal about it. Caring about Buffy drove him out of Sunnydale and screwed up his relationship with her thereafter; caring about Darla made him neglect his other relationships and ultimately drove a wedge between himself and his friends; caring about Connor led to his attempted murder of Wesley; and now caring about Cordelia is estranging him from Connor. Time and time again, he puts all his emotional eggs in one basket and hurts himself and his friends in the process.

[> [> [> [> Re: Putting all the parts together -- lunasea, 15:10:41 03/03/03 Mon

Then they screwed up pretty badly with Faith. Faith barely cared about herself, let alone anyone else. Of course, the PTBs aren't God, so they don't have to be perfect.

Faith did care, she just didn't want to. She cared a whole lot. She has the fire of Buffy. It is just she has gotten burned so many times. Talk about shying away from the fire. ED plays Faith incredibly well so that her vulnerability (the same heart of Buffy and Angel) does shine through. Everytime someone tries to reach her, you can see how it affects her.

One of my favorite Faith moments is in "Five by Five" when she is torturning Wesley. There is one moment where he could have reached her. He is talking about how he knows her and she is looking for just one compliment. It is there on her face. Wesley blows it. Angel really did reach her. He couldn't have if she didn't care deep down inside. She wouldn't have wanted him to kill her if she didn't care. Faith does care. She just doesn't want to.

If she'd been raised in near-isolation (like Kendra), she'd probably be dead by now (like Kendra).

Agreed. She dies in "The Wish."

It seems that, while caring gives Buffy strength, it often causes trouble for Angel because he is so monomaniacal about it.

Buffy is the same way. She tends to be just as obsessive as Angel is. S2 & 3 she was completely wrapped up in Angel, to the point where she was driven to vengeance against Faith. S4 she was so wrapped up in Riley that she completely neglected the Scoobies. S5 it was Dawn, to the point where she couldn't do what was necessary to save the world. What would have happened if her blood didn't stop things? S6 it was Spike and avoiding life.

That is a consequence of these bright fires. They get blinded by them. Buffy and Angel have to learn how to handle this (before they can be together). It gives them both amazing strength, both to do what they have to and to deal with what crap life throws at them. They just get a LOT of crap.

Don't blame these sweet and tender hooligans .... DC quasi-meet -- Solitude1056, 12:25:11 03/03/03 Mon

Nope.

We didn't really talk much Buffy, as we had non-Buffy company. Well, we started to, and I veered away, figuring we could save that for a rainy day. Question is, will there be one? You decide, based on these tidbits, whether online common interests can transcend a few personality differences like:

1. Bagels vs. Sourdough

Boiled bread, or flour-water soup left in a bowl on the kitchen countertop to boil for three weeks? Could both, possibly, be equally disgusting? Who was the first person to try oysters, anyway, and just how hungry was he?

2. Fashionistas Must Die

CAROLINE:
Ever since I got into Kate Spade, y'know.

SOLITUDE1056:
Uh.

CAROLINE:
The handbag.

Beat.

SOLITUDE1056:
Oh.

3. Grunge Is So Not In, Thanks

SOLITUDE1056:
Food For Thought is gone? Man, I can't believe that.
When I was living in DC, the couriers would leave clothes
in the basement, and if you were tired of what you were
wearing, you'd stop by and change into something different.

Very Long Pause.

CAROLINE:
In the basement.

SOLITUDE1056:
Yeah. Y'know, like going shopping...

CAROLINE:
Unh.

4. Student ID or Amex

You decide.

5. Warning to all visitors

Don't let Caroline pick the bar. She will find a place that's cozy, intimate, and has frickin' wool blankets for tablecloths under which your legs will be trapped for the entire three-hour otherwise fascinating conversation while you feel your knees press against everyone else's knees and the table post and you wonder if putting your feet up on the table, hiking boots and all, would be any more demode than anything else you've said/done already.

On the other hand, feet on the table would've made it a great deal easier to change feet. My leg muscles cramp after having the same foot in my mouth for more than fifteen minutes at a stretch. Good thing my feet are mint-flavored.

[> Kate Spade? Handbag? What happened to the Buffy Lunchbox?!! :-O -- LittleBit (is it all over so quickly?), 12:42:25 03/03/03 Mon

[> [> The Buffy lunchbox is still in regular use 'bit, I'm just branching out... -- Caroline (who loves her Buffy handbag...er.. lunchbox), 12:53:39 03/03/03 Mon

[> Just hold on a minute there....I've been unjustly accused. -- Caroline (will this odd couple drive each other crazy?), 12:50:37 03/03/03 Mon

I said that the bar at the Lombardy was great because it was filled with shady East European businessmen and hookers, I didn't say it was cosy and intimate. We could've gone to Kinkeads where the drinks are 3 times the price or to 18th Street Lounge with the young hipsters but I didn't feel like hanging out with the DC Eurotrash. Next time, we head straight to Paul Kee's!

As for the rest of the conversation, its veracity is undeniable as was the rather fascinating nature of all the subjects we managed to meander around and through.

But don't let Sol's self-described ignorance of fashion fool you. While we were in the Indian fabric store after dinner and before the bar, Sol recommended a rather lovely teal green silk shawl for me to wear - I was wearing shades of green, taupe and caramel, so it really provided a great accent to my overall outfit. The shawl in now draping the back of my living-room sofa - I'm a firm believer that fabric can be placed anywhere and when I want to wear it, I'll scoop it up and fling it around my shoulders. It's a neat trick.

You forgot to mention the rule about not standing still outdoors anywhere in downtown after dark.....

[> [> I read that as Kinkheads. -- Solitude1056, 13:16:18 03/03/03 Mon

Of course I know what teal is - that's the same color as my Makita drill. And in case you didn't know, it looks particularly good contrasted with a few touches of Craftsman orange.

[> [> [> The decorator workshop -- LittleBit, 13:49:12 03/03/03 Mon

Add a little Black & Decker black as an accent, and a nice natural wood workbench and you have a well-decorated work space.

Although, personally, I prefer the steel, black and blues of the big tools ... my lathe, jointer, drill press, planer and table saw. ;)

[> [> [> [> *drool* -- Sol 1056, 14:27:11 03/03/03 Mon

planer... jointer...

[> [> [> [> [> I second that! -- Caroline (who ships Norm Abrams/Caroline), 15:27:10 03/03/03 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> are you making that gargly sound like homer simpson, sol? -- anom, 19:47:49 03/03/03 Mon

[> [> So, uh, you two probably *won't* be sharing a room at the Gathering then?? ;) -- LadyStarlight, 13:45:01 03/03/03 Mon

[> [> [> First I'll need a Calorie Laden Parental Unit. -- Solitude1056, 14:30:32 03/03/03 Mon

[> [> [> [> To snack on, or referee?? -- LadyStarlight, 14:52:53 03/03/03 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> no... to pay for the trip! -- Sol 1056, 16:09:26 03/03/03 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> [> Sorry, can't help there! -- LadyStarlight, 16:22:20 03/03/03 Mon

Mine is chipping in her spare AirMiles, so I'm counting myself lucky!

[> I forgot to mention our failed attempt to talk Caroline into... -- Solitude1056, 16:24:06 03/03/03 Mon

...buying herself some yummy sushi pajamas at a shop in Dupont Circle.

[> food for thought? *gone?* aw, man... -- anom, 19:51:32 03/03/03 Mon

Can't believe it! Is Madam's Organ still there? What about Yes!? Please don't tell me the Churrer�a is no more!

[> [> Food for Thought -- Rahael, 03:37:42 03/04/03 Tue

Just curious because there is a 'Food for Thought' near where I work, and I know there is at least another Food for Thought somewhere else in England. Is this a place which does delicious vegetarian food? I hate going to places which don't have meat on the menu, but I love Food for Thought. I was just wondering if these two restaurants were connected, or just two disparate places with the same name.

[> [> Update on the DC scene... -- Caroline, 07:01:24 03/04/03 Tue

Alas, Food for Thought is no more. It has been replaced by Bistro du Coin. The congnoscenti agree that it's a positive move, considering the rat and cockroach problem that Food for Thought refused to fix.

Madam's Organ is still there but 18th Street in Adam's Morgan has changed a lot - gone all yuppyish and hipstery with the rise in real estate prices, but the Yes Bookshop in Georgetown shut down a few years back. Barnes and Noble opened a few blocks away on M Street and that was the end.

Note to Buffy Watchers Who Don't Watch Angel -- Dochawk, 15:43:03 03/03/03 Mon

If you watch Buffy, but don't watch Angel, you might want to change that pattern for the next few weeks (like through the end of Angel). Events on Angel are definitely going to affect the last 6 episodes of Buffy and you may not quite get what's happening on Buffy without watching Angel as well. In fact they MAY (uncorroborated at this time) be working towards a combined finale on May 20.

[> I guess you may say there are spoilers in the above -- Dochawk, 15:54:37 03/03/03 Mon

[> Are there many of those? -- Gyrus, 16:03:02 03/03/03 Mon

Apart from the ones who have no choice (because they don't get one network or the other), that is.

[> [> Well 700,000 more people watch Buffy than watch Angel, just don't know if any are on our board -- Dochawk, 16:15:09 03/03/03 Mon

[> [> *raises hand* Yes, there are a few. -- Sophie, 16:33:17 03/03/03 Mon

Can we get by on reading the scripts if we get confused?

[> [> [> Good question -- do you know, Doc? -- Sophist, 16:37:50 03/03/03 Mon

I'd be really disappointed if it became required to watch one show in order to understand the other. Can we just read the transcripts or Masq's summaries?

[> [> [> [> Personally reading a transcript or summary isn't the same as watching the show. -- Rufus, 16:41:11 03/03/03 Mon

[> [> [> [> Masq's analyses read like stereo instructions -- Masq ; ), 16:55:52 03/03/03 Mon

Or so I've been told. I try to put all important information into my analyses, and I DEFINITELY cross-reference the shows and episodes that connect to each other between the two shows.

However, calling my analyses "summaries" is not entirely accurate. They don't tell everything that happened in an episode, and they don't tell things in the order they were shown on screen.

So defintely read them if you have a question about how something works or why somebody did something. But they can't replace a transcript, script, or viewing an ep.

How about a tape-trading scheme for the WB-challenged?

[> [> [> [> [> Hardly. And who told you that? No mercy -- we'll turn him/her over to Honorificus. -- Sophist, 20:16:19 03/03/03 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> [> It was an email I got a while back -- Masq, 20:25:00 03/03/03 Mon

from some insignificant flea of a person. Hardly worthy of the Magnificently Fashionable Honorificus' time or effort.

But it did prompt me to put a disclaimer at the top of my main episode index to the effect that my episode analyses were NOT summaries, and best understood only after seeing an episode.

[> [> [> [> [> I know stereo instructions when I see them. Your analyses aren't stereo instructions. -- OnM, speaking about one of the few things he knows for sure., 20:55:02 03/03/03 Mon

For one thing, your analyses are comprehensible. I can't follow many user guides, and I'm a freakin' technician!

To say that many of them lose something in the translation is quite the understatement. In fact, I custom write condensed instruction papers for many of our installations because the customer couldn't figure out how to use the stuff otherwise.

*******

Go placidly amidst the noise and waste...

*******

[> [> [> [> [> [> onm, didn't you leave the middle part out? -- anom, flashing back to the bentsen-quayle vp debates, 22:40:59 03/03/03 Mon

"Re: I know stereo instructions when I see them. [Stereo instructions are a friend of mine.] Your analyses aren't stereo instructions."

OK, sounds like they're not really such a friend of yours, but I had to! (Sorry to anyone under, oh, about 20--this probably went right over your head!)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> See, you can never be too subtle or too obscure for this board! :-) -- OnM, 04:35:27 03/04/03 Tue

And, no, they aren't. Friends. Of mine, that is. We have too many engineers who can't write clearly, and too many tech writers who don't actually ever use the product, they just translate 'engineering-speak' to 'tech-writer speak', missing the fact that the customer/end-user needs 'normal-person-speak'.

(95% of the people who buy audio and video equipment aren't audio or videophiles-- they're 'normal' people.)

(~sigh~)

[> [> [> [> Re: Good question -- do you know, Doc? -- Dochawk, 18:29:03 03/03/03 Mon

I don't think you'll need to watch both to understand Buffy, but my guess (and I am only spoiled as to casting) is that it would help.

I would suggest that Rufus ask Beast if she could post his reviews here (they are pointed, he doesn't exactly love the character Angel or the character Buffy) but he gets all the action in and if there are reference on Angel to Buffy I am sure they will be there. They are more time oriented than Masq's which are more thematically oriented.

[> [> [> Scripts..... -- Rufus, 16:39:16 03/03/03 Mon

Scripts are just the outline they use when shooting and sometimes you will see that they changed dialogue and sometimes how a character says a line...or leave whole parts out......plus Angel scripts haven't been as available as the Buffy ones at places like Psyche's

[> [> [> [> You can try wildfeeds -- s'kat, 18:19:27 03/03/03 Mon

But like the Btvs wildfeeds - they are somewhat lacking since it's all from one person's pov. Can also just read the board's analysis.

I agree with Dochawk - this is the time to start watching Angel. It's not that many episodes. And it's only for the remainder of this year. Besides the next three episodes should be really good.

SK

[> [> [> [> [> Exactly -- Rufus, 18:29:15 03/03/03 Mon

One person will see one thing and someone else will miss it, meaning no one Wildfeed includes everything or is immune from bias. Easier to start watching Angel.

[> [> [> [> [> [> ummmm....not so sure about that -- Sophie, 19:25:28 03/03/03 Mon

Being a grad student sucks up my time and has reduced me to watching one TV show, i.e. Buffy. Also, I would add Alias and Enterprise, but taking over my roomie's vcr one day a week for recording Buffy is asking enough of her, I feel. Angel got knocked off my TV watching last year because the plot lines jump in all directions rather haphazardly, I thought. I can read the script in 20 minutes or a wildfeed in 5 minutes and not have to bug my roomie.

That said, if somebody wants me to watch Angel that badly, then they can tape it and send it to me (or send me mpeg-1 format on CD).

(Yes, LB, I checked the download from IRC thing and I couldn't get connected to the server and I only have dial-up connection. I successfully logged into other IRC channels, so I don't know what the trouble there is.)

Sophie

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> The surreal eccentric plot lines of Angel aren't the linear ones of Buffy -- Masq, 20:47:02 03/03/03 Mon

The bad guy/gal doesn't always get killed, and if s/he does, it's usually not at Angel's hand. Seasons don't have easily identifiable "big bads" that go away in episode 21 or 22. Plots sometimes veer off on tangents, but they always come back to the core themes--the desire for family, the desire to do good in the world, and desire to overcome your own personal demons in order to fulfill the first two desires.

It takes more work than Buffy, but it's worth it.

[> [> [> Can't stand watching Angel.... grrrr to being forced. -- Rochefort, 20:29:05 03/03/03 Mon

His hair stands straight up and...

(blah). I'm gearing up to have to watch that dopey broody nancy boy. I had to check t.v. guide to even see when it was on.

[> [> [> [> Re: Can't stand watching Angel.... grrrr to being forced. -- lunasea, 21:21:29 03/03/03 Mon

I'm gearing up to have to watch that dopey broody nancy boy.

Faith isn't there to deal with dopey broddy nancy boy. She is there for the purely deliciously truly sadistic makes Spike look like a pansy Angelus.

When Angelus is gone, I bet Faith goes with him.

But then when the other crossover happens, you will be missing the background.

Your choice. You can have a piece of plain cake or one smoothered in strawberries and whipped cream.

And did I say, that David thought my idea was cool in chat today. Cool!!! He actually used that word about something I said.

[> [> [> [> [> ^ Casting spoiler above, and spoilers for aired Angel eps -- Scroll, 08:16:57 03/04/03 Tue

[> [> [> [> Resist! Ignore the peer pressure! -- dream, 05:57:15 03/04/03 Tue

I often read the Angel scripts to get a sense of what's going on, though I really dislike the show. A script takes less than fifteen minutes on my lunch hour. Sure, a line or two might be changed - but will that really affect the overall idea? If you are only looking at Angel to understand Buffy, yes, it will be good to have an idea of what's going on, but I can't imagine that they're going to hang your understanding of Buffy on particular lines from another show on another network.

I try to keep my total viewing of movies/tv to under three hours a week. When there's not a new Buffy, it can and usually does drop to zero. I used to watch a lot of television, and I have found I am much less depressed if I avoid it. I need to keep a balance - some alone time, some time with friends, some time reading, some time drawing, some time cooking, some time walking, some time going to museums, some time playing with the cat. And of course life demands some time working and some time paying bills and some time calling my mother and some time cleaning the bathroom. There's not that much time to go around. Television is just not that big a priority - nor do I think it should be. Even when it's good. Not unless I really love it like I love Buffy. What I hear when someone says that I should watch Angel even if I don't like it is "Is your time really that precious?" And my answer has to be: Yes. Every minute.

[> [> coming late to the party, but yes -- Helen, 06:40:15 03/04/03 Tue

I don't watch Angel, although of late i have been trying to watch it with the view that this could be the end of everything and it would be a shame to have missed out. I don't know why I don't really ... not wanting to be a telly addict, prefering the idea of Buffy's story to that of Angel, not liking the way Cordelia has changed (there's a thread somewhere where someone states they dislike the end of Grease because in order to win her man Sandy has to conform. Well who made Cordy conform? I found it far more interesting when she was snarky, and superficial, and frankly a bit of a bitch, but still always came through with the right thing to do. And she performed well in standardised tests - she had levels y'know?)

Anyway, just to show that you can be obsessive enough about one show to come here on a daily basis and not care about the other show much at all. Will probably get into when Buffy is gone, and get the tapes to catch up on back story.

[> What a coincidence... Casting Spoiler for Final Ep of Buffy -- MayaPapaya9, 17:27:08 03/03/03 Mon

I just made my daily visitation to this board for the purpose of asking you all what was going on in "Angel" because I read in Entertainment Weekly that he and Faith were going to be present for the season finale of Buffy. I haven't watched Angel in like two years, what day is it even on?! I may just start watching it again. I heard Connor is sleeping with Cordelia? Ew much???? Does that mean that Angel is single...and free to reunite with Buffy, as B/A shippers have been dreaming for the last four years?

-Maya

[> [> Angel is on Wednsday's at 9pm -- Rufus, 18:41:03 03/03/03 Mon

I wouldn't be counting chickens when it comes to any ship on either show.....;)

[> [> [> Except when it's Thursdays at 7 -- luna, 18:51:00 03/03/03 Mon

Out here in the very weird world where WB and UPN share a cable channel....

[> [> [> [> Re: Or even, worse ... Thursdays at 10 -- LittleBit, 19:03:02 03/03/03 Mon

[> [> [> [> This West Coast Canadian gets to see Angel Tuesdays at 9pm....:):) -- Rufus, 19:16:03 03/03/03 Mon

[> For me, watching AtS enriches my experience of BtVS and vice versa. -- Ixchel, 23:11:38 03/03/03 Mon

I find it fascinating to follow the general themes and ideas from one show to the other. I would really encourage anyone who only watched one to watch both. IMHO, it adds an interesting dimension to viewing.

And, even if I wasn't an AtS fan, due to the WKCS I'd have to be physically restrained from watching AtS these next few weeks. ;)

Ixchel

[> [> Very much ditto : ) -- Scroll, 11:13:20 03/04/03 Tue

For me, crossovers are a treat. And I'm not just talking about actual crossovers in which actors move from one set to another, but thematic crossovers and even "shadow" characters (like the Holtz/Justine pairing as shadow of Giles/Buffy). Crossovers enrich my understanding of Buffy and Angel; I get twice the philosophical goodness, twice the character 'shipness, and twice the fun!

As for Well-Known Casting Spoiler, she is the epitome of the Buffy/Angel crossover (her, and Chanterelle/Lily/Anne) because while her character began on Buffy, her true epiphany was on Angel. And now she is switching roles with Angel and resolving her plot on Angel and then returning to Sunnydale to finally reconcile with Buffy on Buffy.

You can't have one without the other. IMHO :)

Current board | More March 2003